 Government Spending Is The Problem The late, great economist Milton Friedman said, "The real problem is government spending." This is true as spending comes before taxes or regulations. In fact, if people didn't form a government or politicians didn’t create new programs, then there would be no need for government spending and no need for taxes. And if there was no government spending nor taxes to fund spending then there would be no one to create or enforce regulations. While this might sound like a utopian paradise, which I desire, there are essential limited roles for governments outlined in constitutions and laws. Of course, most governments are doing much more than providing limited roles that preserve life, liberty, and property. This is why I have long been working diligently for more than a decade to get a strong fiscal rule of a spending limit enacted by federal, state, and local governments promptly under my calling to "let people prosper," as effectively limiting government supports more liberty and therefore more opportunities to flourish. Empirical research underscores the importance of spending restraint over tax hikes in promoting economic growth. Studies by economists Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna, John Taylor, Casey Mulligan, and others have consistently shown that fiscal adjustments based on reducing government spending better foster economic growth than those based on raising taxes. Fortunately, there have been multiple state think tanks that have championed this sound budgeting approach through what they've called either the Responsible, Conservative, or Sustainable State Budget. I recently worked with Americans for Tax Reform to publish the Sustainable Budget Project, which provides spending comparisons and other valuable information for every state. This groundbreaking approach was outlined recently in my co-authored op-ed with Grover Norquest of ATR in the Wall Street Journal. When Did This Budget Approach Begin? I started this approach in 2013 with my former colleagues at the Texas Public Policy Foundation with work on the Conservative Texas Budget. The approach is a fiscal rule based on an appropriations limit that covers as much of the budget as possible, ideally the entire budget, with a maximum amount based on the rate of population growth plus inflation and a supermajority (two-thirds) vote to exceed it. A version of this approach was started in Colorado in 1992 with their taxpayer's bill of rights (TABOR), which was championed by key folks like Dr. Barry Poulson and others. (picture below is from a road sign in Texas)  Why Population Growth Plus Inflation? While there are many measures to use for a spending growth limit, the rate of population growth plus inflation provides the best reasonable measure of the average taxpayer's ability to pay for government spending without excessively crowding out their productive activities. It is important to look at this from the taxpayer’s perspective rather than the appropriator’s view given taxpayers fund every dollar that appropriators redistribute from the private sector. Population growth plus inflation is also a stable metric reducing uncertainty for taxpayers (and appropriators) and essentially freezes inflation-adjusted per capita government spending over time. The research in this space is clear that the best fiscal rule is a spending limit using the rate of population growth plus inflation, not gross state product, personal income, or other growth rates. In fact, population growth plus inflation typically grows slower than these other rates so that more money stays in the productive private sector where it belongs. To get technical for a moment, personal income growth and gross state product growth are essentially population growth plus inflation plus productivity growth. There's no reasonable consideration that government is more productive over time, so that term would be zero leaving population growth plus inflation. And if you consider the productivity growth in the private sector, then more money should be in that sector at the margin for the greatest rate of return, leaving just population growth plus inflation. Population growth plus inflation becomes the best measure to use no matter how you look at it. Given the high inflation rate more recently, it is wise to use the average growth rate of population growth plus inflation over a number of years to smooth out the increased volatility (ATR's Sustainable Budget Project uses the average rate over the three years prior to a session year). And this rate of population growth plus inflation should be a ceiling and not a target as governments should be appropriating less than this limit. Ideally, governments should freeze or cut government spending at all levels of government to provide more room for tax relief, less regulation, and more money in taxpayers' pockets. Overview of Conservative Texas Budget Approach Figure 1 shows how the growth in Texas’ biennial budget was cut by one-fourth after the creation of the Conservative Texas Budget in 2014 that first influenced the 2015 Legislature when crafting the 2016-17 budget along with changes in the state’s governor (Gov. Greg Abbott), lieutenant governor (Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick), and some legislators. The 8.9% average growth rate of appropriations since then was below the 9.5% biennial average rate of population growth plus inflation since then, which this was drive substantially higher after the latest 2024-25 budget that is well above this key metric (before this biennial budget the growth rate was 5.2% compared with 9.4% in the rate of population growth plus inflation).  This approach was mostly put into state law in Texas in 2021 with Senate Bill 1336, as the state already has a spending limit in the constitution. The bill improved the limit to cover all general revenue ("consolidated general revenue") or 55% of the total budget rather than just 45% previously, base the growth limit on the rate of population growth times inflation instead of personal income growth, and raise the vote from a simple majority to three-fifths of both chambers to exceed it instead of a simple majority. There are improvements that should be made to this recent statutory spending limit change in Texas, such as adding it to the constitution and improving the growth rate to population growth plus inflation instead of population growth times inflation calculated by (1+pop)*(1+inf). But this limit is now one of the strongest in the nation as historically the gold standard for a spending limit of the Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) has been watered down over the years by their courts and legislators, as it currently covers just 43% of the budget instead of the original 67%. My Work On The Federal Budget In The White House From June 2019 to May 2020, I took a hiatus from state policy work to serve Americans as the associate director for economic policy ("chief economist") at the White House's Office of Management and Budget. There I learned much about the federal budget, the appropriations process, and the economic assumptions which are used to provide the upcoming 10-year budget projections. In the President's FY 2021 budget, we found $4.6 trillion in fiscal savings and I was able to include the need for a fiscal rule which rarely happens (pic of President Trump's last budget).  Sustainable Budget Work With Other States and ATR When I returned to the Texas Public Policy Foundation in May 2020, as I wanted to get back to a place with some sense of freedom during the COVID-19 pandemic and to be closer to family, I started an effort to work on this sound budgeting approach with other state think tanks. This contributed to me working with many fantastic people who are trying to restrain government spending in their states and the federal levels. Here are the latest data on the federal and state budgets as part of ATR's Sustainable Budget Project. From 2014 to 2023, the following happened: Federal spending increased by 81.7%, nearly four times faster than the 23.1% increase in the rate of population growth plus inflation.
Result: American taxpayers could have been spared more than $2.5 trillion in taxes and debt just in 2023 if federal and state governments had grown no faster than the rate of population growth plus inflation during the previous decade. And this would be even more if we considered the cumulative savings over the period.  My hope is that if we can get enough state think tanks to promote this budgeting approach, get this approach put into constitutions and statutes, and use it to limit local government spending as well, there will be plenty of momentum to provide sustainable, substantial tax relief and eventually impose a fiscal rule of a spending limit on the federal budget. This is an uphill battle but I believe it is necessary to preserve liberty and provide more opportunities to let people prosper.
Sustainable State Budget Revolution Across The Country Below are the states and think tanks which I'm working with and this revolution is going, which you can find an overview of this budgeting approach in Louisiana and should be applied elsewhere. I update these periodically, successful versus not successful budgeting attempts being 25-9 so far.
If you're interested in doing this in your state, please reach out to me. For more details, check out these write-ups on this issue by Grover Norquist and I at WSJ, Dan Mitchell at International Liberty, and The Economist.
0 Comments
Economics and Spending, National and Local on Qualified Opinions Podcast with Veronique De Rugy9/6/2024 Joining the show today is Vance Ginn. Vance is the founder and president of Ginn Economic Consulting, where he leverages data-driven insights to shape economic policy discussions across the nation.
Over the course of the show, Veronique and Vance discuss state and local government spending, federal spending, and the connection between the two.
Originally posted here: https://www.politicsandparenting.com/p/the-economy.
Today on the show I am joined by Vance Ginn, Ph.D. A leading economist and advocate for free-market principles and fiscal conservatism. He is the former associate director for economic policy at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and chief economist at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. He is the founder and president of Ginn Economic Consulting and host of the Let People Prosper Show podcast, providing high-impact economic consulting that dives deep into pressing issues with top influencers. He lives in Round Rock, Texas, with his family, championing policies that promote economic freedom and prosperity. We discuss inflation, debt, minimum wage, currency, and tariffs. This is a great episode for average citizens trying to get a handle on this complex topic. Be sure to follow Vance on X and Substack, and check out his new article out in the Freemen-News Letter.  Chair Huffman and Members of the Committee, Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am Dr. Vance Ginn, president of Ginn Economic Consulting. Over the last decade, the Texas Legislature has made progress in property tax relief, but the affordability crisis demands more action. Property taxes are not just a financial burden—they are fundamentally immoral. They force Texans to perpetually rent from the government, functioning as unrealized capital gains and wealth taxes paid annually. This system makes it difficult for families with low or fixed incomes to build and pass on a legacy.  Last session, despite a $32.7 billion surplus, new property tax relief was limited to just $12.7 billion. And the state budget increased by a record 32% in state funds from GAA appropriations to appropriations  Although this was the second-largest tax relief amount in Texas history, property taxes increased by $165 million last year from excessive spending by local governments.  The path forward is clear: spend less and reduce property tax rates rather than complicating the housing market with homestead exemptions, discounts, and abatements that make elimination more difficult. To eliminate property taxes, consider three simple steps:
 This three-step process will help curb soaring property taxes and pave the way for a more prosperous future without property taxes to preserve life, liberty, and prosperity. Thank you for your time, and I’m glad to answer any questions.
 Originally published by Real Clear Health.
By Vance Ginn & Deane Waldman August 27, 2024 Affordability of health care in the U.S. has been declining, reaching its lowest point since 2022, with no signs of improvement. This stark reality underscores the urgent need for a healthcare system that prioritizes timely access to affordable, high-quality care. To achieve this goal, the government needs to step aside and empower We the Patients. In fact, Americans need exactly the opposite of what Candidate Harris intends to do if she gains the oval office. She plans to expand Washington’s role in Americans’ health (medical) care. The U.S. spends an astonishing $4.8 trillion annually on healthcare. But here's the truly shocking part: more than half of that huge expense produces NO patient care! It does not pay for essential services like doctor visits, hospital stays, medications, mental health care, and home health care! Two point four trillion “healthcare” dollars are wasted on administrative costs and regulatory compliance. This useless spending not only inflates costs but also diverts resources away from patients, contributing to delays in care and, tragically, to what is known as "death-by-queue," where Americans die while waiting for care they desperately need. Many healthcare providers find themselves trapped in a system driven by perverse incentives. The third-party payment structure rewards dollar efficiency over medical effectiveness, and volume over value. This misalignment leads to unnecessary tests and procedures, over-treatment, and a general focus on quantity rather than quality of care. We need a shift to value-based care, where the definition of value is determined by patients and providers—not by an externally imposed financial metric. When patients have control over what is considered valuable, providers are incentivized to focus on their patients rather than following federal rules. The result is better health outcomes at lower costs. This approach aligns patient well-being with financial rewards, promoting preventative care and chronic disease management, which can reduce hospitalizations and improve overall health. However, a significant obstacle to achieving this vision is the heavy hand of government regulation. The regulatory environment in healthcare dramatically increases costs and restricts access to care by siphoning money away from patients to fund bureaucratic overhead. Streamlining and eliminating unnecessary regulations could foster a more competitive market, driving efficiency, effectiveness, and innovation. Restoring financial control to patients is crucial. While price transparency is often touted as a solution, it won't lead to real savings unless patients—not third parties—control their health care spending. Currently, third-party payers make most of the medical decisions, stripping patients of their autonomy and resulting in frustration and poor outcomes. Eliminating restrictions on Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and other consumer-directed health options can empower patients with financial control, incentivizing them to seek cost-effective care. The employer-supported health insurance model is another area ripe for reform. This system, a relic from World War II when wage freezes forced companies to offer health insurance as a benefit, is outdated, limits patient choice, and increases costs. Today, the average cost of employer-provided health insurance is $18,328 per employee. This money would be better spent if given directly to employees, still tax-advantaged, and made available for deposit into an unlimited Family HSA. With these funds, Americans would have the financial freedom to shop for direct-pay care, creating competition among providers and driving prices down. Technology also holds great promise for revolutionizing healthcare delivery. Telemedicine, for example, was a critical lifeline during the COVID-19 pandemic, providing access to care while reducing the strain on traditional healthcare facilities. It has also proven invaluable in reaching rural and underserved urban areas, where access to healthcare is often limited or non-existent. By fostering technological innovation, we can further increase the effectiveness and efficiency of healthcare delivery, lower costs, and expand access to those who need it most. The U.S. healthcare system is plagued by a "cancer" of ever-expanding bureaucracy and a third-party payment system with misaligned incentives. To cure this, we must reduce government over-regulation and return financial as well as medical control to We the Patients. This shift will instantly align incentives, reduce wasteful government spending on bureaucracy, and deliver timely, affordable care to many more Americans. The path forward is clear: give control back to the patients and doctors. Let them decide what care they need and how they want to pay for and provide it. For the medically vulnerable, state-created and -run, not federal one-size-fits-all, safety nets. By doing so, we can finally achieve the goal of delivering high-quality, affordable care to everyone. Vance Ginn, Ph.D., is president of Ginn Economic Consulting, host of the Let People Prosper Show, and previously chief economist of the Trump White House's OMB. Follow him on X.com at @VanceGinn. Deane Waldman, M.D., MBA is Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics, Pathology, and Decision Science; former Director of New Mexico Health Insurance Exchange; and author of 12 books, including multi-award winning, Curing the Cancer in U.S. Healthcare: StatesCare and Market-Based Medicine.  Originally published at American Institute for Economic Research.
The school choice revolution shines a bright light on an otherwise dire situation caused by COVID and draconian government efforts, including shutting down schools with little to no sound reason. But it woke a sleeping giant in parents across the country: their kids were learning little at public schools and it was time for them to stand up. Since then, parents have spoken loudly and clearly, with more than 30 states now having a school choice program, including 12 states with a universal or near-universal education savings account (ESA) program. But Texas is not yet on that list. Texas is the largest red state and has more than six million school-age kids but has yet to follow the lead of other states with school choice, even when there is overwhelming support for it. Given the recent primary election victories for school choice proponents against incumbents, which rarely happens, there is an opportunity for a big win in the Lone Star State for students, parents, teachers, and taxpayers. According to the NAEP test, only 24 percent of eighth graders are proficient in math and 23 percent in reading. Texas’s public education system is failing kids. The time for bold action is now: Texas must embrace universal education savings accounts (ESAs) to reclaim its position as a leader in educational excellence. As states like Arizona, Florida, and ten other states with universal or near-universal ESAs demonstrate the transformative power of school choice, Texas’s delay in adopting ESAs is becoming increasingly urgent. Amid the heated debate over school choice legislation in Texas, the stark reality is that while these states are witnessing improved student outcomes and a more competitive educational landscape, Texas continues to lag despite pouring billions into public education. Despite a $20.3 billion increase in the latest two-year state budget for public education — a 33.3 percent boost — student performance in Texas has stagnated. Less than 20 percent of classroom expenditures reach teachers, with much of the budget consumed by bloated administrative costs. The average classroom receives about $340,000 annually, yet teachers, the backbone of our education system, see only a fraction of this amount in their paychecks. This inefficiency is a clear sign that the current system is broken. Economist Milton Friedman’s vision of school choice as a means to dismantle the government’s monopoly on education is more relevant than ever. States that have implemented ESAs are seeing better student outcomes and improvements in public schools due to the competitive pressure of school choice. In contrast, Texas remains stuck in a system that fails to deliver its promises, leaving students underperforming, teachers underpaid, and taxpayers questioning where their money is going. As I recently highlighted in my testimony before the Texas House Committee, this stagnation is untenable. The economic case for universal ESAs in Texas is equally compelling. By moving to an ESA model, Texas could reduce its per-student spending from $17,000 for 5.5 million students at public schools to $12,000 for all 6.3 million school-age kids, potentially saving taxpayers $18 billion annually. These substantial savings could then be returned to Texans through lower property taxes, providing much-needed relief as the cost of living rises. Moreover, a competitive education system would compel schools to pay quality teachers more, with estimates suggesting salary increases of up to $28,000 annually. The benefits of ESAs extend beyond education; they represent a broader commitment to economic freedom and efficient use of taxpayer dollars. Recent primary election results show that public support for school choice is overwhelming. Yet, despite this mandate, Texas lawmakers have not acted. The path forward is for Texas to pass a universal ESA bill that gives every parent the freedom to choose the best educational environment for their children. This is about more than just improving education — it’s about empowering parents, raising teacher salaries, and ensuring that our taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. Beyond education, the benefits of ESAs would reverberate throughout the Texas economy. A well-educated, adaptable workforce is essential for maintaining Texas’s competitive edge in attracting businesses and fostering innovation. By providing students with the education that best suits their needs, ESAs prepare them for success in a rapidly changing job market, support higher property values, and spur job creation. Having grown up in a low-income, single-mother household in South Houston, attending private, public, and home schools, I understand firsthand the transformative power of educational choice. Texas has always been a leader, but the state is falling behind in education. Texas must stop following and join the school choice journey across the country to ensure every child has access to a high-quality education tailored to their unique needs. The future of our children, teachers, and economy depends on it. It’s time for lawmakers in every state to act, so universal ESAs become not just a revolution but the norm, empowering Americans for generations to come.  See Full Research on the Texas Budget.
Introduction The Texas Legislative Budget Board (LBB) publishes the "Fiscal Size-Up" report after every session to comprehensively review the state's budget and fiscal actions for the biennium. The latest report, covering the 2024-25 budget period, offers crucial insights into how tax dollars are allocated following the 88th Texas Legislature's regular and special sessions in 2023. The following are key highlights. Budget Inconsistencies and Excesses
Tax Revenue, Economic Situation, and Spending Cap
Funding by Major Categories
Corporate Welfare and New Constitutional Funds
Specific Budget Insights
Fiscal Challenges and Recommendations
Conclusion The Fiscal Size-Up for the 2024-25 biennium provides a detailed snapshot of Texas' budgetary landscape, highlighting significant increases in appropriations and strategic investments in key areas. While the budget reflects robust growth and substantial investments, it also underscores the need for continued fiscal discipline to ensure sustainable economic prosperity for all Texans. As the state navigates these fiscal challenges, adopting prudent budgetary practices and prioritizing taxpayer relief will be crucial for maintaining Texas' economic vitality.  Overview
Introduction Recently, the Texas Legislative Budget Board released the Fiscal Size-Up 2024-25 Biennium report with the latest estimated or budgeted amounts in the prior 2022-23 budget and the appropriated 2024-25 budget. The results from the 88th Texas Legislature’s efforts after a regular and four special sessions resulted in the largest budget increase, the largest corporate welfare increase, the largest social safety net increase, and the second largest property tax relief in Texas history. These results are not what one expects in the red state of Texas, but the appropriate ways to evaluate the latest budget data provided here show much room for fiscal improvements in the Lone Star State. If these efforts last session continue, Texas will not have sustainable budgeting, nor will Texans be as prosperous because of higher taxes, less economic growth, and fewer well-paid jobs. Fortunately, the path forward to achieve fiscal sustainability can happen by at least passing a frozen budget for the next biennium and returning excess collected taxes, called a “surplus,” to taxpayers by reducing school district maintenance and operations (M&O) property tax rates. The genius of America’s republic with federalism provides laboratories of competition among the states that Texas will not lead if this recent trend of excessive spending continues. Texas can overcome these challenges and provide the fiscally conservative path forward for Texans to benefit and other states, countries, and local governments to follow for maximum human flourishing. Texas Budget as Reported by the Legislative Budget Board The Legislative Budget Board comprises elected state officials and staff who evaluate, report, and determine key components of the state’s budget. These components include determining the growth rate of the constitutional spending limit, budget totals for each period to report to the public, and other factors. Unfortunately, the LBB reported the budget figures relatively late, giving the author and other Texans less time to evaluate the budget before the next session, which begins in January 2025. The amounts in the LBB’s latest report for the 2024-25 budget provide appropriated amounts for that period and expended or budgeted amounts for the previous 2022-23 budget. While the LBB uses these amounts and shares them with legislators to help evaluate budgeting decisions, the amounts have problems. Problems with Comparisons in the LBB’s Fiscal Size-Up The primary issue is that the amounts in the 2022-23 budget are not comparable with those in the 2024-25 budget. This is because the 2022-23 budget includes initially appropriated amounts passed in 2021, supplemental appropriated amounts in 2023 to backfill any underfunded programs, and other expenditures during the budget period. However, the 2024-25 budget includes only initially appropriated amounts during 2023 until any supplemental appropriated amounts in 2025 and other expenditures later. This paper addresses this by considering the calculations in the Conservative Texas Budget and Frozen Texas Budget approaches below. While this is an issue for appropriately comparing the budget over time, the LBB’s approach is useful because it determines the amounts for the constitutional and statutory spending caps when the LBB meets the fall before a regular session. The constitutional spending limit is on certain general revenue not dedicated by the constitution (about 40% of the total budget), and the statutory spending limit covers consolidated general revenue (about 50% of the total budget). The spending growth cap determined by the LBB for the 2024-25 budget was 12.33% based on the average rate of population growth times inflation over the last two fiscal years and the upcoming two fiscal years. Given this information, we can better understand the LBB’s report, which compares spending to appropriations, which is like comparing apples with oranges and not appropriate accounting. Table 1 provides the budget information from Figures 1 to 14 in the LBB’s report that state officials can claim shows the budget is well below the spending limit. Still, these comparisons are incomplete and need further evaluation.  Even with these calculations, Figure 24 of the LBB’s report shows the available amounts of $16.8 billion under the Constitutional pay-as-you-go limit, $5.1 billion under the Constitutional and statutory tax and spending limit, and $13.8 billion under the statutory consolidated general revenue limit. Given that the data in Table 1 provides an inconsistent apples-to-oranges budget comparison, the tables below are more accurate ways for an apples-to-apples comparison from initial appropriations to initial appropriations. Consistent Comparisons of the Texas Budget Any growth in a government’s budget is an expansion of the role of government in our lives, potentially reducing our liberty. But there can be legitimate reasons for the growth of limited government if it preserves liberty by not overburdening taxpayers with funding excessive spending with costly taxes. Conservative Texas Budget The first comparison is based on a long-held view of fiscal conservatism that the budget should not grow by more than the average taxpayer’s ability to pay for it, as measured by the rate of population growth plus inflation. Limiting a government’s budget growth to this metric essentially freezes the budget in inflation-adjusted per capita terms. This approach has been considered in my research for the Conservative Texas Budget, Sustainable Budget Project, and responsible budget approaches in other states. The Conservative Texas Budget approach uses the rate of population growth plus inflation in the two prior years before 2023 for a biennial spending limit of 16%. This rate is not a target but a maximum, especially considering elevated inflation rates created by the Federal Reserve. excludes tax relief that does not grow the government, including the $6.2 billion in general revenue for the 2022-23 appropriations and $18.2 billion in general revenue for the 2024-25 budget. The property tax relief amount for the 2024-25 budget period is in the budget, SB 2, and HJR 2. This included $5.3 billion to maintain past property tax relief efforts in the budget. It also includes more than $12 billion in new property tax relief through reducing the school district M&O property tax rates by an additional 10.7 cents per $100 valuation, raising the homestead exemption from $40,000 to $100,000, and excluding property tax relief amounts from the Constitutional spending limit. Finally, it includes $600 million to raise the income exemption for businesses to pay franchise taxes to $2.47 million. This approach also excludes $13.3 billion in federal funding for COVID-related relief efforts, as these were one-time funding sources that should not go into ongoing budget items. Table 2 shows what the Conservative Texas Budget looks like when excluding tax relief and one-time federal funding amounts in initial appropriations in both budget periods.  Using the CTB approach above, Figure 1 highlights how the budget has improved since the implementation of the CTB started with the 2016-17 budget. This looked much better before the 2024-25 budget, but the massive growth of the current budget raised the growth of initial appropriations even as the rate of population growth plus inflation rose slightly during the latter five budget period. If the growth of the budget is not controlled, it will soon surpass the rate of population growth plus inflation like it did during the prior six budget periods, which is unsustainable.  While the state’s budget has improved over the last decade compared with rates of population growth plus inflation, the state’s budget is up well above the rates since the 2004-05 budget. The cumulative annual difference above these rates since then is $262.5 billion, meaning a family of four owes, on average, $17,300 more in taxes than otherwise. Frozen Texas Budget The CTB is an important approach but has limitations because Texas taxpayers are already paying too much for their government. This is a good reason to freeze or even cut the Texas budget. Considering the initial appropriations in 2022-23 and 2024-25, with tax relief and COVID-related funding included in both periods, Table 3 compares the budget with a Frozen Texas Budget.  These increases in initial appropriations to initial appropriations for general funds, general-revenue-related funds, state funds, and all funds are substantial and likely the largest in Texas history, as not all years of Texas history are available. The Legislature provided more than $12 billion in new property tax relief, $600 million in new franchise tax relief, and $5.3 billion to maintain old relief for the 2024-25 budget. This $18.2 billion in tax relief did not grow the government so that it could be removed from these figures, but the $6.2 billion in tax relief in 2022-23 must also be removed for consistency. After removing these tax relief amounts in both budget periods, the increases remained excessive at 25.7% in state funds, like for the CTB above, and 17.4% in all funds, which is different than the CTB because the CTB excludes the $13.3 billion amount for COVID-related federal funds in 2022-23. Budget Increases by Article, Including Public Education With these unsustainable budget increases, it is important to consider where these appropriations are throughout the budget. While some consider declines in funding for public education, also known as government schooling, the amount is up substantially when appropriately considering the Frozen Texas Budget approach. Table 4 shows the increases in initial appropriations for general revenue, state funds, and all funds, respectively, from 2022-23 to 2024-25.  Conclusion The comparisons above highlight how the LBB’s report is informative but incomplete and misleading as it provides an inconsistent comparison of spending-to-appropriations. By appropriately accounting for appropriations-to-appropriations like the above for the Conservative Texas Budget and Frozen Texas Budget, the increase in the budget is far greater than the average taxpayer can afford to pay for and is well above what is needed to correct past budget excesses. While the LBB shows that general revenue-related funds increased by 8.8% and all funds increased by 2.7%, this inconsistent approach finds that state funds increased by 17.2%. However, the consistent approaches prove that the budget increased by 25.7% in state funds for the CTB, excluding the amounts for tax relief and COVID-related funding, or by 32% for the Frozen Texas Budget, including those amounts. Moreover, the budget increased by 23.7% in all funds for the CTB or by 21.5% for the FTB. Therefore, it is highly likely that when the supplemental appropriations and other expenditures happen during the 2024-25 budget, there can be a consistent spending-to-spending comparison, showing much larger increases in the LBB’s figures that look more similar to the CTB or FTB. Digging into these budget amounts provides a better understanding that the latest Texas budget is unsustainable and must be corrected in 2025. This is why the Frozen Texas Budget should be the maximum for the 2026-27 budget in 2025, making the maximum amounts appropriated be $219.4 billion in state funds and $321.7 billion in all funds. However, the Texas Legislature should strongly consider substantial cuts in appropriations, given the historic budget increases in the last session. The starting point should be 10% cuts across the board, but 20% cuts should not be out of the question. Recall that the government has no money; every dollar it spends comes from taxpayers. If the government is going to spend more than 20% each biennium like it did last session, Texans have less liberty and less opportunity to flourish.  Places to start cutting would be massive increases in corporate handouts and safety net programs expanded last session. In addition to getting rid of pork, there should be no increases in public education after record increases in the last session, and the Legislature should consider replacing the arcane school finance system with funding through universal education savings accounts (ESAs). This approach could substantially reduce expenditures on K-12 schooling from about $17,000 for each of the 5.5 million students in public education to about $12,000 for each of the 6.3 million school-age kids in Texas. This could bring spending on K-12 schooling down from about $93 billion to $75.6 billion per year. These savings should reduce school district maintenance and operations property tax rates to put them on a fast path to elimination. This approach would also better empower every parent with the opportunity to school their kids in a way that best meets their unique needs. It would also help keep more money in their pocket for transportation to schooling, tutoring, books, and more, whether they choose public, private, home, co-op, or other types of schooling. School choice helps empower parents, improve student outcomes, increase teacher pay, and expand economic output.
Finally, instead of passing the second largest property tax relief last session, property taxes remained essentially unchanged in 2023 despite the state appropriating more than $12 billion to reduce school district M&O property taxes to reduce the property tax rate by an additional 10.7 cents per $100 valuation and raise the homestead exemption to $100,000. There was about $6.5 billion for the 2023 relief and the rest to maintain the relief in 2024. In the next session, the Legislature should better limit government spending, reform school finance, and use the “surplus” to reduce school district M&O property tax rates as much as possible. Add to this spending restraint by local governments so they can use “surplus” funds to return to taxpayers by reducing their property tax rates until they are zero. This process of passing a frozen state budget, using 90% of surplus dollars to compress school district M&O property tax rates until they are zero, and having local governments eliminate the rest of their property taxes with surplus dollars above a new local spending limit will eliminate property taxes in Texas soon. This will help Texans own their property and have more liberty so that they have opportunities to prosper.  Originally published at Kansas Policy Institute. The Kansas Legislature will consider transformative changes to the long-standing challenges in the state’s budgeting process this fall. State law mandates that the governor provide a budget report to the Legislature. However, this practice has evolved into the governor proposing an entire budget, with the Legislature making adjustments. The Legislature should instead have a more active role in proposing the budget, working with the governor to improve it, and giving the governor ways to adjust it with line-item vetoes afterward to help provide effective fiscal management. Opportunities Moving Forward Regardless of who proposes the budget, the state should consider a year-round approach to spending and budget review. The budget committees should meet periodically after a regular session annually to conduct performance-based analyses. State law requires performance-based budgeting, but it has yet to be faithfully implemented, and time limits during the legislative session make it difficult to police. As part of a year-round budget process, the Legislature should notify agencies that no spending increases will be approved for agencies that fall short of performance-based budgeting expectations. This proactive approach would replace the current practice where budget committees listen to agency proposals without adequate analysis. Another effective method for evaluating whether programs are delivering their intended goals is through independent, external efficiency audits. Unlike internal reviews, these audits objectively assess government programs’ effectiveness, which can suffer from the “fox guarding the henhouse” syndrome. While not perfect, efficiency audits can mobilize public interest from taxpayers and watchdogs to advocate for reforms or eliminate inefficient programs, thereby reducing unnecessary taxpayer expenditures. Other ideas include improving the sunset review process and requiring the sundown of programs and agencies to enhance Kansas’ budget effectiveness. This process can help with priority-based budgeting, which combines performance-based and zero-based budgeting. Combining better review processes during the year, sunset meetings, and program sundown at fixed intervals would improve the budget process. Add a broad spending limit with a strong, preferably constitutional, constraint. This would compel legislators to identify inefficiencies and phase out failing programs. A fiscal rule such as the Responsible Kansas Budget could serve this purpose effectively, ensuring that spending grows sustainably, aligned with population growth and inflation. Learning from Other States Many states have adopted best practices to improve their budget processes, drawing from performance-based budgeting, zero-based budgeting, efficiency audits, and spending limits. Here’s an overview of what other states are doing. Colorado
Recommendations for Kansas Kansas can draw inspiration from these states and ALEC’s budget reform toolkit:
By adopting these best practices, Kansas can move towards a more efficient, accountable, and fiscally responsible budget process. Incorporating these reforms will help Kansas enhance its budget process, ensuring more effective and efficient use of taxpayer dollars. The upcoming informational hearings provide an excellent opportunity to advocate for these changes and set Kansas on a path to long-term fiscal health.   
Read my research for more information on this here. This is the notice of the public hearing.
Chairman Buckley and Members of the Texas House Committee on Public Education: My name is Dr. Vance Ginn, president of Ginn Economic Consulting. I'm a proud Texan, an economist, a husband, and a father of three. I grew up in a low-income, single-mother household in South Houston. I attended private, public, and home schools before becoming the first in my family to graduate from college, where I earned my doctorate in economics at Texas Tech University. I've dedicated my career to the calling to let people prosper, including more than a decade of working to understand and improve education, school finance, and other policies in Texas and nationwide. Today, I urge you to please consider Texas's critical need for universal Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). Despite historic increases in public education funding recently and over time, student performance in Texas is flat or declining. Our state needs to catch up, as many states have educational opportunities that are not available here. Economist Milton Friedman once said about improving education, "The only solution is to break the monopoly, introduce competition and give the customers alternatives." The time is now for Texas to follow this vision with a “Texas approach” for improved education, more pay for quality teachers, and a better economy. Here are questions to consider during your deliberations: 1. Why are Students and Texas Falling Behind in Education?
Conclusion Texas must lead in the race for educational excellence. The evidence shows that universal education savings accounts will help provide this. Texas should pass a universal ESA bill to ensure every child in Texas has access to a high-quality education tailored to their unique needs. Thank you for your time and consideration. I am glad to be a resource on these issues throughout your deliberation and am happy to answer your questions. Vance Ginn, Ph.D., is president of Ginn Economic Consulting, affiliate at more than 15 think tanks across the country, and host of the Let People Prosper Show. Dr. Ginn was previously a lecturer at multiple institutions of higher education, chief economist at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and chief economist at the White House's Office of Management and Budget. He earned his doctorate in economics at Texas Tech University. Follow him on X.com at @VanceGinn and get more of his research at vanceginn.com.  Originally published at Texans for Fiscal Responsibility.
Introduction The Texas Legislative Budget Board (LBB) publishes the “Fiscal Size-Up” report after every session to comprehensively review the state’s budget and fiscal actions for the biennium. The latest report, covering the 2024-25 budget period, offers crucial insights into how tax dollars are allocated following the 88th Texas Legislature’s regular and special sessions in 2023. The following are key highlights. Budget Inconsistencies and Excesses The report inconsistently compares the budget with estimated, budgeted amounts in 2022-23 and appropriated amounts in 2024-25. This means that the 2022-23 budget includes initial appropriations, supplemental appropriations, and other expenditures, while 2024-25 includes only initial appropriations. The report’s comparisons are informative but incomplete. The discrepancy makes it challenging to accurately assess the state’s fiscal health, so only initial appropriations should be used for a consistent comparison. The 2024-25 biennium saw the largest budget increase in Texas history, driven by a significant rise in appropriations across various areas. The initial appropriations for 2024-25 were $321.7 billion in all funds, a 21.5% increase in state and federal funds from the previous biennium. When excluding federal funds and looking at State funds only, appropriations were $219.4 billion, a 32% increase. Tax Revenue, Economic Situation, and Spending Cap The report also details how much tax revenue was collected, showing a robust revenue performance driven by strong economic growth and higher tax receipts in various categories, including sales tax, oil and gas production taxes, and motor vehicle sales taxes. Texas’ economy showed strong growth indicators, with rising employment rates and increased personal income levels, although inflationary pressures and supply chain disruptions posed significant challenges. The LBB set the spending growth cap at 12.33%, based on the average rate of population growth and inflation. This cap aims to control excessive government spending and ensure fiscal sustainability. Funding by Major Categories The Foundation School Program received substantial increases, including $5.3 billion to maintain past property tax relief efforts and $12.3 billion in new property tax relief to reduce school district M&O property tax rates by 10.7 cents per $100 valuation and raise the homestead exemption from $40,000 to $100,000. There was also a nearly $7 billion increase in new funding for public education despite continued poor student outcomes. In Health and Human Services, Medicaid was the main driver of healthcare costs at the state level. There were changes in how much the federal government provided, and the state expanded the program by allowing mothers to receive benefits for up to 12 months after giving birth. Overall, the two categories of Public Education and Health and Human Services accounted for an astounding 70% of all State appropriations. On the infrastructure and transportation side, significant expenditures on transportation infrastructure were made to help address the state’s growing need for improved roadways and systems. Corporate Welfare and New Constitutional Funds Much of the budget also included funding for corporate welfare, including:
Additional Budget Insights
Fiscal Challenges and Recommendations Despite Texas’ economic success and renown, the State faces some challenging headwinds, mostly self-created. A major headwind is the unsustainable increases in government spending and property tax burdens. A better approach is a “Frozen Texas Budget” to curb irresponsible spending by maintaining the current budget levels and returning surplus funds to taxpayers, which would eliminate property taxes over time and promote fiscal responsibility. Going forward, the 89th Texas Legislature is encouraged to adopt stricter budgetary controls to sustain property tax relief efforts and reduce the overall spending burden. Recommendations include freezing the budget, cutting unnecessary expenditures, and continuing property tax reductions through rate compression. Conclusion The Fiscal Size-Up for the 2024-25 biennium provides a detailed snapshot of Texas’ budgetary landscape, which, when examined properly, highlights significant increases in government appropriations, at the expense of taxpayers. While the budget reflects robust growth and substantial investments, it also underscores the need for continued fiscal discipline to ensure sustainable economic prosperity for all Texans. As the state navigates these fiscal challenges, adopting prudent budgetary practices and prioritizing taxpayer relief will be crucial for maintaining Texas’ economic vitality.  Originally published at Mackinac Center.
Michigan is spending money at an unsustainable rate, and the state’s latest state budget shows why this can’t go on. The state-funds budget for fiscal year 2024-25 is $46.8 billion, a 0.4% decline from the previous year. While this amount is below the Sustainable Michigan Budget level, it hides deeper problems threatening the state’s economic future. Lawmakers are spending less because of a lack of tax revenue, not a lack of desire. Lower revenue stems from a slow-growing state economy. Michigan’s economic output ranked just 38th out of 50 states last year. Without more taxpayer money, lawmakers irresponsibly skimped on pension contributions to pay for questionable priorities. The state-managed public school retirement system is underfunded by $29.9 billion, but lawmakers decided to lower pension contributions by $670 million. The new budget is loaded with pork. Local district grants amount to $1 billion, taking resources away from the state’s necessary purposes and putting them toward some lawmakers’ political interests. Pork projects in Michigan, whereby taxpayer funds are directed to specific legislative districts for political favor, represent another misuse of taxpayer money. These projects often fail to serve the broader public interest and divert resources from critical areas such as infrastructure, education and health care. Eliminating these pork projects could free up funds for more pressing needs or make it possible to return money to taxpayers through tax relief, fostering long-term economic stability. The demand for district grants is also leading lawmakers to another unsustainable practice: spending state savings. Legislators started their term with $7 billion in cash in the state’s accounts, but administrators expect the latest budget to reduce that to $350 million. In short, lawmakers passed an unsustainable budget that deferred pension debts and wasted money on pet projects. There are better ways to run a budget. Lawmakers have spent about $19 billion more than sustainable levels since fiscal year 2018-19. Michigan taxpayers could have saved roughly $4 billion from the current budget alone if lawmakers had budgeted sustainably over the period, and they could have avoided dipping into savings or underfunded pensions. As a result of unsustainable budgeting, the budget includes a massive amount of pork. Next year’s Legislature will have plenty to cut if it needs to save money. Lawmakers could do better if they abide by the Sustainable Michigan Budget, a strict budgetary method that aligns spending growth with the rate of population growth plus inflation. Spending caps and mandatory budget reviews are essential tools to maintain fiscal discipline. Legislators should allocate resources effectively and eliminate wasteful expenditures to create a more sustainable fiscal path. Lawmakers could have let people keep an additional 0.2% of their income had they practiced sustainable budgeting. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer rescinded a modest tax cut in the tax rate, and the latest budget spends the money from the resulting tax hike. Lowering taxes would make Michigan’s business environment more competitive, encourage job creation, spur higher wagess and foster a more vibrant economy. This approach enhances economic freedom and ensures that future tax increases are avoided, preventing additional burdens on residents. Addressing the pension shortfall and eliminating inefficient pork projects would reduce unnecessary expenditures and allocate resources more effectively. This approach will prevent future fiscal crises and ensure the state does not have to raise taxes on its residents to cover shortfalls. Reducing government spending is more than balancing the budget. It’s about unleashing Michigan's full potential and ensuring a brighter future. A little restraint can go a long way. It can ease the burdens taxpayers face, catch up on what is owed and leaves money in the bank. Michigan would be better positioned if lawmakers kept a Sustainable Michigan Budget.  Originally published at Texas Policy Research Institute.
The Texas Legislative Budget Board (LBB) has released its Fiscal Size-Up (FSU) for the 2024-25 biennium, providing a comprehensive overview of the state’s budget. This document is essential for understanding how Texas allocates its financial resources and highlights significant fiscal actions taken by the 88th Texas Legislature. Here’s a breakdown of the key points from the FSU and additional insights to provide clarity and context. The DelayIt is important to note that there was a significant delay in the publication of the FSU this cycle, for reasons unknown. For comparative purposes, here are the release dates of the past few Fiscal Size-Up publications:
Overview of the 2024-25 Biennial BudgetFor reference, we have cataloged the Texas State Budget by Biennium from 1996 to 2025 based on information previously published by the LBB. You can also see that information broken down by Article of the State Budget for the same time period. Here are the key takeaways from how state lawmakers appropriated taxpayer money in the most recent legislative session:
Detailed Analysis and RecommendationsVance Ginn, a Ph.D. economist, Founder and President of Ginn Economic Consulting, former Chief Economist at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from 2019 to 2020 in the Trump Administration, and board member of Texas Policy Research, recently shared his initial thoughts on the FSU on Twitter/X. “You’ll notice that the increase in All Funds, which includes all funding sources, is 21.5% when consistently calculated from initial appropriations to initial appropriations. At the same time, the LBB reports it to be just a 2.7% increase from an inconsistent comparison, which tells us very little about how much our tyaxpayer dollars are being used. This is because the 2024-25 amounts don’t include any supplemental appropriations or other spending that will happen by the Texas Legislature, so it is incomplete and incorrect to compare the two amounts in the FSU without this context.” Vance Ginn, Ph.D. Twitter/X post, 7.31.2024 @VanceGinnDr. Ginn highlighted several broader points about the FSU, including what it includes, what it excludes, and his concerns leading into the next legislative session in January 2025:
ConclusionThe Texas Legislative Budget Board’s Fiscal Size-Up for the 2024-25 biennium reveals significant increases in the state budget, particularly in public education funding. However, a review of the document highlights the need for careful consideration of budget comparisons, the impact of increased funding on education outcomes, and the sustainability of current spending levels. The proposed reforms aim to optimize the allocation of taxpayer dollars, improve public education outcomes, and provide substantial tax relief to Texans.  Originally published at Kansas Policy Institute.
Kansas has been simmering in economic stagnation for decades, trailing behind national averages in job growth, population increases, and economic growth. Like a poorly tended grill, high taxes and selective business subsidies have smoked out potential growth, leaving stagnation rather than sustenance. From 1979 to 2022, Kansas’s private job growth was just 53% compared to the national average of 88%. Imagine the vibrancy of having an additional 451,000 jobs in the state—jobs that could have been fostered with more competitive tax policies. Kansas has seen a net exodus of nearly 198,000 residents since 2000, driven away by an unwelcome tax environment. The states with the lowest tax burdens saw an influx of 4.6 million people from domestic migration during the same period, while the high-tax states watched 10.7 million residents pack up and leave. According to recent IRS data, Kansas lost $2.1 billion in adjusted gross income due to people moving elsewhere since 2017. The Kansas Policy Institute’s Green Book shows per capita spending of $4,941 in 2022 was substantially higher than in states with no personal income taxes ($3,283) and the ten best economic performance ($3,543). States with lower tax burdens have had better job growth and economic activity. Between 1998 and 2022, the ten states with the lowest state and local tax burdens averaged 51% growth in private-sector employment versus 34% for the ten states with the highest burdens. Kansas, ranked 44th during this period, achieved just 16% growth. Furthermore, Kansas’s high spending per person translates to higher taxes, ultimately burdening its citizens and hampering economic growth. More recently, Kansas’s unemployment rate ticked up to 2.9% in May 2024, a slight increase but a revealing one. The total nonfarm payroll employment saw a marginal uptick by 100 jobs. Beneath this weak report, there was more weakness as the private sector lost 300 jobs while the government added 400 jobs. This isn’t growth; it’s a reshuffle at a high cost to private-sector workers. Over the past year, Kansas has seen an overall increase of 24,000 jobs, with the private sector contributing 18,700 and the government sector adding 5,300, or about 20% of the total. During the recent special session, the Legislature passed several measures to boost the state’s economic prospects. One notable legislative action was passing a multi-billion dollar STAR bond to attract major sports franchises, especially the Chiefs and Royals from Missouri, just a few miles away. Investing in sports is like predicting Kansas weather—unpredictable and always exciting. There is potential for economic rain, but this will likely put you in a financial storm instead. Moreover, the recent special session saw efforts to provide broad tax relief, with the key being reducing tax brackets from three to two, which is a correct step toward a flat income tax. These changes could significantly impact Kansas’s economic landscape, reducing the tax burden and potentially helping grow the economy. However, the effectiveness of these measures will depend heavily on their implementation and the accompanying fiscal restraint. Flattening the income tax would transform Kansas from a flyover state into a destination. This move would simplify the tax code, making it fairer and less of a headache—because the only thing Kansans should worry about rising are the sunflowers. Kansas has also flirted with property tax relief with KPI promoting a constitutional amendment to limit appraisal valuation increases, which has broad support. The same or separate constitutional amendments should limit property tax levies, which cover the product of appraisals and tax rates, and cap state and local government spending to the rate of population growth plus inflation. The latter would best limit the true burden of government in the form of spending, providing predictability and stability for homeowners and businesses alike. Kansas is sitting on a $4 billion reserve—it’s like having a savings account when you’re deep in credit card debt. Responsible budgeting ensures fiscal sustainability and prevents the state from falling into the cycles of budget shortfalls and hasty tax hikes that have plagued it in the past. By following this approach, over-collected taxpayer money called a “surplus,” can be returned by cutting a flat income tax rate. This can be achieved by spending on essential services outlined in the state’s constitution, providing opportunities for strategic budget cuts and growth of no more than the rate of population growth plus inflation. This balanced approach helps ensure fiscal sustainability without compromising essential services. By implementing bold tax reforms and adopting a disciplined approach to spending, Kansas can pave the way for a prosperous future. These measures will create an environment conducive to job creation and economic competitiveness, ensuring that Kansas becomes a place where businesses thrive, and residents enjoy a higher quality of life.  Originally published at National Review Online.
States must restrain spending growth while cutting and flattening income-tax rates. Economist Milton Friedman famously said, “I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible. The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending.” This sentiment encapsulates the driving force behind the tax-cut revolution transforming the American economic landscape. This movement toward lower, flatter, and, in some cases, no income taxes is reshaping state fiscal policies to relieve taxpayers from funding excessive government. For instance, Georgia’s reduction of the state income-tax rate from 5.49 percent to 5.39 percent and Idaho’s shift to a flat income-tax rate of 5.8 percent enhance competitiveness and support more economic activity. Iowa’s adoption of a flat income tax rate of 3.8 percent, one of the lowest in the nation, further exemplifies this trend. Arkansas reduced individual and corporate tax rates, providing tax relief for the third time in 15 months. Hawaii’s substantial increase in standard deductions and adjustment of tax brackets aims to provide relief to low- and middle-income families. Kansas included property-tax relief alongside consolidating its income tax from three to two brackets. The tax-cut revolution represents a shift towards more efficient and equitable tax systems. By adopting flatter, lower tax rates, states can enhance their economic competitiveness and improve the quality of life for their residents. However, these tax cuts must be accompanied by sustainable budgeting practices that limit government spending. In 2023, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) launched The Sustainable Budget Project, which monitors state government spending and tracks which states have or have not enacted sustainable budgets. The project defines a sustainable budget as one that limits the pace of state government spending to lower than the rate of population growth plus inflation. This approach ensures that government growth is kept in check, preventing excessive taxation and debt accumulation. Examining spending trends from 2014 to 2023 reveals the crux of the problem. Aggregate 50-state spending, excluding funding from taxpayers through the federal government, increased by 59.1 percent during this period. If states had restrained their spending to the rate of population growth plus inflation, they would have spent $1.44 trillion in 2023, $430 billion less than the $1.87 trillion spent. Over the entire decade, this would have saved $1.4 trillion, leaving more money in taxpayers’ pockets. Some states have demonstrated the benefits of sustainable budgeting. ATR found that six states held total spending growth below population growth plus inflation: Alaska, Colorado, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming. Additionally, six other states held growth in state funds, which excludes federal funds, below the rate of population growth plus inflation: Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, and Rhode Island. Sustainable budgeting is the key to ensuring long-term prosperity. By focusing on responsible budgeting and reducing obstacles to economic growth, such as high spending, taxes, and regulations, states can create an environment where everyone can prosper. Improve Immigration by Strengthening American Values with Dr. Veronique de Rugy| LPP ep. 1026/25/2024 Join me for Episode 102 of the Let People Prosper Show to hear a deep discussion with the fantastic Dr. Veronique (Vero) de Rugy, the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, who migrated from France to America.
We Explore: -How the entrepreneurial spirit contributes to immigration between countries. - What the differences are between national conservatism and classical liberalism. - Which policies would improve the economic and fiscal picture. Like, subscribe, and share the Let People Prosper Show, and visit vanceginn.substack.com and vanceginn.com for more insights from me, my research, and ways to invite me on your show, give a speech, and more.  Hello everyone,
It’s a pleasure to be with you today. As one who believes strongly in free markets and individual liberty and has served as the chief economist of multiple think tanks and at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, I’ve come from Texas not with barbecue, as you also have delicious barbecue, but with a recipe for economic prosperity that I hope you’ll find equally savory. It’s great to visit Kansas and contribute to the fantastic work at the Kansas Policy Institute. My business at Ginn Economic Consulting works with KPI and 14 other think tanks nationwide. In these capacities, I hear of the attention that Kansas receives for its past tax cuts without spending restraint and current efforts for tax relief. Kansas has been in an economic slow cook for decades, trailing behind national averages in job growth, population increases, and economic output. Much like a poorly tended grill, high taxes, and selective business subsidies have smoked out potential growth, leaving behind more stagnation than sustenance. Let’s chew over some numbers: From 1979 to 2022, Kansas's job growth limped along at just 53% compared to the national average of 88%. Imagine the vibrancy of having an additional 451,000 jobs in the state—jobs that could have been fostered with more competitive tax policies. Moreover, Kansas has seen a net exodus of nearly 198,000 residents since 2000, driven away by a tax environment as welcoming as a blizzard in May. The states with the lowest tax burdens saw an influx of 4.6 million people from domestic migration during the same period, while the high-tax states watched 10.7 million residents pack up and leave. In the most recent IRS data, Kansas lost $2.1 billion in adjusted gross income due to people moving out since 2017. In May 2024, Kansas's unemployment rate ticked up to 2.9%, a slight increase from 2.8% but a revealing one. The total nonfarm payroll employment saw a marginal uptick by 100 jobs last month. Beneath this weak report, there was more weakness as the private sector lost 300 jobs while the government added 400 jobs. This isn’t job growth; it’s a reshuffle at a high cost to private-sector workers. And this is a trend we've seen before. Over the past year, Kansas has seen an overall increase of 24,000 jobs, with the private sector contributing 18,700 and the government sector adding 5,300, or about 20% of the total. Milton Friedman once quipped, “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.” In Kansas, if you continue to rely on excessive taxing and spending for growth, you will find yourself short on more than just jobs and people but on opportunity that drives prosperity. During the recent special session, the Legislature passed several measures to attempt to boost the state’s economic prospects. One notable legislative action was passing a $3 billion STAR bond to attract major sports franchises. Investing in sports is like predicting Kansas weather—unpredictable and always exciting. There is potential for economic rain, but you might be in a financial storm without careful budgeting and rigorous oversight. While what is seen is the possible construction, new jobs around, and new tax revenue, the unseen is costly. This includes the poor precedence for other wasteful acts by the government, higher taxes on those nearby and over time, and the lack of knowledge about what will happen over the next 30 years to the teams, the community, or other costs that come with government planning. Moreover, the recent special session saw positive efforts for broad tax relief, with the key being reducing income tax brackets from three to two, which is a step toward a much-needed flat income tax. Starting in tax year 2024, married Kansans filing jointly would have their taxable income taxed at 5.2% up to $46,000 and at 5.58% above that amount. The changes should significantly impact Kansas by reducing the tax burden and unleashing economic growth as people are incentivized to save, invest, and work. However, the effectiveness of these measures will depend heavily on accompanying spending restraint. Let’s talk about property taxes. Kansas has started the pit on property tax relief, but it’s time to cook it. Tentative tax relief discussions this year hinted at significant cuts, but Kansas should solidify this with a constitutional amendment to limit levy increases. Think of it as putting a leash on a dog prone to running off—you ensure it’s safe and always in sight. The amendment should cap annual increases as low as possible if property taxes increase at all, providing predictability and stability for homeowners and businesses alike. Regarding income taxes, flattening the income tax would turn Kansas from a flyover state into a destination. This move would simplify the tax code, making it fairer and less of a headache—because the only thing Kansans should worry about rising are the sunflowers. While the Legislature tried it this year, you should keep this as part of the approach next time. The reason why is easy to see. States with lower tax burdens consistently show superior economic growth trends; between 1998 and 2022, the ten states with the lowest tax burdens averaged 51% growth in private-sector employment, compared to 34% for the states with the highest burdens. Kansas managed a modest 16% growth during this period, ranking 44th. Kansas is sitting on a $4 billion reserve—it's like having a savings account when you’re deep in credit card debt. You should use this wisely with a responsible budget model that KPI has put forward for years now, allowing spending to grow no more than by population growth plus inflation, preferably by much less to overcome past spending excesses. This isn’t just tightening the belt; it’s ensuring you can still afford it in the future. Responsible budgeting ensures fiscal sustainability and prevents the state from falling into the cycles of budget shortfalls and hasty tax hikes that have plagued Kansas in the past. By following this approach, over-collected taxpayer money, called a “surplus,” can be returned by cutting a flat income tax rate to zero as quickly as possible. Kansas has seen its share of financial missteps, but now is the time for bold action. The legislative decisions made today will determine the state’s economic future. Legislative candidates, you are positioned to lead Kansas into a new era of fiscal responsibility and economic growth. The decisions made in the coming years will determine whether Kansas continues along the path of stagnation or redirects toward prosperity. Consider these policy recommendations not just as suggestions but as necessary steps toward securing a thriving economic future for Kansas. Kansas must also embrace responsible budgeting for these tax cuts to be sustainable. The state should learn from the lesson of excessive spending during the last decade’s troubles, which led to deficits and foolish tax hikes. In fact, the 2025 General Fund budget is 69% higher than in 2017 when Governor Kelly took office, or $3.7 billion higher than inflation over this period. Reining in this excessive use of taxpayer money to spend it on only limited roles outlined in the state’s constitution would provide opportunities for strategic budget cuts and increases of less than the rate of population growth plus inflation. This responsible approach helps ensure fiscal sustainability without compromising essential services. Thank you for your dedication to Kansas and your commitment to principles that enhance not just the economy but also liberty. You can help ensure Kansas becomes a beacon of fiscal responsibility and economic success, where every resident wants to stay and others are eager to join. Roll up your sleeves, sharpen your pencils, and get to work on policies that let Kansans prosper. After all, as Friedman would say, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program"—aim for long-term policies with fewer tradeoffs to support the most opportunities. Thank you, and if you’d like to continue this conversation, I invite you to connect with me at [email protected] and subscribe to my newsletter at www.vanceginn.substack.com. Let’s work together along with the great folks at KPI to create a future where Kansans can truly prosper.  Originally published at Mackinac Center.
Michigan’s economic and fiscal future hinges on adopting sustainable budgeting practices. Insights from other states show the tangible benefits of fiscal restraint, efficiency, and lower taxes. By examining how other states have managed their budgets, Michigan can learn valuable lessons in improving its fiscal health and thus secure a prosperous future. In 2023, Americans for Tax Reform launched its Sustainable Budget Project. This project monitors state government spending and tracks which states have enacted “sustainable budgets.” The Sustainable Budget Project defines a sustainable budget as one that grows no more than a specific rate: the inflation rate plus population growth, as expressed as a percentage. This project is similar to Mackinac Center’s Sustainable Michigan Budget. For comparison, Texas has focused on fiscal discipline and low taxes, creating a business-friendly environment that attracts investment. It has kept government spending in check, which fosters an environment conducive to economic growth. As a result, it projects a $21 billion surplus next year despite the recent large budget increase. In contrast, California faces a significant economic challenge due to high taxes and heavy spending habits. With the state facing an upcoming budget deficit of at least $45 billion, Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed painful spending cuts to various social programs. This development highlights the risks of unsustainable budgeting. California relies on volatile revenue sources (especially a progressive income tax with high rates) and has failed to implement spending discipline, leaving it in a precarious fiscal situation. Other states, such as Alaska, Colorado, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming have kept spending growth below the rate of population growth plus inflation over the last decade. They’ve maintained lower taxes and enjoyed better economic health even though most of these depend partially on volatile oil and gas activity. These states have demonstrated that sustainable budgeting can lead to greater economic stability and improved quality of life for residents. Their commitment to fiscal discipline has allowed them to weather economic downturns more effectively and avoid severe budget shortfalls. Implications for Michigan Michigan's budget growth outpaces both inflation and population growth, placing a heavy burden on taxpayers. Officials can reduce this burden by adopting sustainable budgeting practices like those of successful states. This will support more economic growth and attract businesses. Sustainable budgeting can also enhance Michigan’s economic resilience, making it less susceptible to economic shocks and fiscal crises, which have historically burdened oil and gas states. The benefits of sustainable budgeting extend beyond fiscal stability. By reducing unnecessary spending and lowering taxes, Michigan can increase disposable income for families, encourage consumer spending, and boost total economic activity. This can lead to more jobs, higher wages and improved living standards for all Michiganders. To achieve sustainable budgeting, Michigan should implement strict budgetary controls, such as spending caps and mandatory budget reviews. Additionally, the state should focus on long-term fiscal and economic health by eliminating wasteful spending, increasing spending prudently and reducing tax burdens. Transparency and accountability in the budget process are also crucial for spending taxpayer money wisely. Sustainable budgeting is not just about balancing the budget — it's about ensuring a brighter future for all Michiganders. By adopting best practices from other states, Michigan can become a model of fiscal discipline and economic vitality, providing a stable and prosperous environment for its residents and future generations.  It's a pleasure to speak with the Texas Aggregates and Concrete Association again and enjoy the great resort here with my wife and three young kids. While aggregates and concrete may not always be in the spotlight, they are the bedrock of our infrastructure, forming the foundation upon which we build our homes, businesses, and communities.
Reflecting on my journey, I realize how essential the right direction and strong institutions are in shaping our paths. Much like the solid foundation of concrete, institutions give us the stability to build and grow. Like the economy, my life has been a series of peaks and troughs. In my younger years, I grew up in a low-income, single-mother household in South Houston as my dad had epilepsy, and they divorced when I was five years old. I went to private school from K-2 grades, public school from 3-6 grades, and home school from 7-12. Unlike many of you, I took many risks during my teenage years and began playing drums in a band called "Sindrome," living the rockstar life. But a near-fatal car accident in 2002 was my wake-up call, one of several but the one that turned me toward a brighter path. Through this experience, a month in bed with many bumps and bruises, and a lot of prayer, I found my purpose: to help others through my calling to let people prosper. We find ourselves at a pivotal point in our country and in Texas. The recent elections tell us that there is a clear call for change in the Lone Star State. The upcoming November elections will be another opportunity for the country to steer towards a path of prosperity or continue down a troubling road. As an optimist, I believe in our potential, but I also recognize our country and state's many economic, political, and cultural issues. Policy Uncertainty and Economic Volatility At the national level, we face several economic challenges. The Biden administration has been keen on infrastructure spending, which includes the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. While this aims to rejuvenate our infrastructure, it also raises concerns about efficiency and the role of government in these projects, and the fact that we are running deficits higher than that per year with the national debt at nearly $35 trillion and net interest payments of $1 trillion exceeding national defense expenditures of about $860 billion. Excessive government spending, increased regulation, and interventionist policies often lead to inefficiencies and distortions in the market. Milton Friedman, my favorite economist, warned about the dangers of heavy government involvement, advocating instead for free-market solutions that empower individuals and businesses. Election years heighten policy uncertainty, which can drive economic volatility. Businesses and investors become cautious, waiting to see which policies will prevail. This hesitation can slow economic activity, affecting everything from job creation to investment in new projects. For the aggregates and concrete industry, this means potential delays in infrastructure projects and fluctuations in demand. Milton Friedman once said, "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years, there’d be a shortage of sand." This sharp but insightful remark underscores the inefficiency that often accompanies government intervention. In his view, infrastructure projects should be managed by private entities with a direct stake in the outcome and can respond more agilely to changes and needs. Here in Texas, we are not immune to these challenges. Our state is known for its robust economy and low taxes, but we're grappling with excessive government spending and high property taxes. The Texas Comptroller's report highlights how our spending on transportation is around $10 billion annually. While infrastructure is crucial, we must be mindful of how these funds are used to ensure they generate real value for taxpayers. Weak Labor Market Amid Headlines of Strength Despite headlines showing strength, the U.S. labor market reveals underlying weaknesses. Nearly half of Americans think we are in a recession, reflecting a disconnect between reported statistics and personal experiences. Real average weekly earnings have declined by nearly 4% since January 2021, squeezing household budgets and diminishing purchasing power. The labor force participation rate remains low at 62.5%, significantly below the February 2020 level. If participation were the same as it was then, the unemployment rate would be closer to 6% rather than the reported 4% today. Texas, however, leads in job gains, which is a testament to our state's resilient economy. Yet, we must acknowledge that the 25% increase in the two-year state budget last year was excessive. This surge in spending did not provide sufficient property tax relief, which is critical for maintaining economic vitality and keeping Texas attractive for businesses and residents alike. Moreover, we must prioritize universal school choice next year to ensure educational opportunities that meet diverse needs and drive future economic growth. Election Year Volatility During election years, the stakes are even higher. Uncertainty about future policies can cause volatility in markets and economic performance. For instance, debates over infrastructure funding, environmental regulations, and tax policies can create an unstable business environment. Companies may delay or cancel projects, affecting the demand for aggregates and concrete. This uncertainty trickles down, impacting jobs, investments, and overall economic health. Aggregates and concrete are essential for the development and maintenance of our infrastructure. These materials for things like highways and homes are our physical landscape's backbone. However, it's crucial to approach their use smartly. We don't need to resort to industrial policies with high costs and trade-offs, burdening taxpayers. Instead of a top-down approach, which often fails due to bureaucratic inefficiencies, we should consider a bottom-up approach to transportation projects. This includes government projects, public-private partnerships, and private projects. A significant portion of infrastructure could be managed through private toll roads. While my ideal vision leans heavily on privatization and tax cuts, I recognize that a balanced approach is more realistic in the current environment. Public-private partnerships can bring innovation and efficiency, reducing the burden on taxpayers while still delivering essential infrastructure. Let me share an example from my work. My research finds that private toll roads can often be built faster and cheaper than public projects. Private companies are directly incentivized to minimize costs and maximize efficiency. For instance, the LBJ Express project in Dallas, a public-private partnership, was completed ahead of schedule and under budget, demonstrating the potential benefits of such collaborations. There is also a need to move to design-build for projects in Texas rather than today's more costly and time-consuming design-bid-build approach. Additionally, Texas is experiencing significant population growth, with more people moving to the state, increasing the demand for our infrastructure. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is investing in expanding highways and improving ports to accommodate this growth. Projects like the $7.5 billion North Houston Highway Improvement Project aim to address these demands. However, we must ensure that these investments are managed efficiently and effectively. Role of Institutions and Central Planning Another key aspect is the role of institutions. Friedrich Hayek, in his book "The Road to Serfdom," cautioned against the overreach of central planning. He emphasized that central planning often leads to inefficiencies and a loss of individual freedoms. His insights are particularly relevant today as we navigate the complexities of modern infrastructure development. To truly flourish, Texas needs to embrace more free-market capitalism and resist the creeping influence of socialism in our economy. This applies to transportation and beyond. By focusing on the efficient use of resources, reducing regulatory burdens, and fostering competition, we can build a more prosperous future. The bottom-up approach not only ensures better utilization of resources but also empowers local communities to take charge of their development, aligning projects more closely with the actual needs and priorities of the people. Consider the example of toll roads in other states. Using private toll roads in Virginia has significantly improved traffic flow and reduced congestion in previously bottleneck areas. This model can be replicated in Texas, where traffic congestion is growing, especially in urban areas. By allowing private companies to manage and maintain these roads, we can ensure they are kept in optimal condition without continuously draining public funds. Furthermore, private toll roads can be a source of innovation. Companies can introduce advanced technologies for traffic management and toll collection, making the entire system more efficient. For example, using electronic toll collection systems in Florida has greatly reduced vehicles' time at toll booths, enhancing the overall travel experience. However, this doesn't mean we should eliminate public involvement in infrastructure projects. There are instances where government intervention is necessary, especially in projects that may not be immediately profitable but are crucial for public access and economic activity. This is where public-private partnerships come into play, allowing us to leverage the strengths of both sectors. The government should act as a facilitator rather than a direct manager of projects. By setting clear regulations and standards, it can ensure that private companies operate fairly and efficiently while also protecting the interests of the public. This approach can help us avoid the pitfalls of excessive government control while still reaping the benefits of private sector efficiency. Paul Krugman and other progressives might argue that significant government intervention is necessary to address market failures and ensure equitable outcomes. They believe that without government oversight, critical infrastructure could suffer from underinvestment, and social inequalities could worsen. While these points are worth considering, history has shown us that excessive government control often leads to inefficiencies, higher costs, and reduced innovation. Learning from Failures and Future Outlook My journey from poverty to rockstar to entrepreneurial economist taught me the value of strong institutions and the importance of aligning personal purpose with societal needs. This principle applies to our infrastructure as well. Just as a solid foundation is critical for a stable building, a robust institutional framework is essential for a thriving economy. We must ensure that our policies and investments in infrastructure reflect this understanding. As we look toward the future, we must remain vigilant against the encroachment of socialist policies that threaten to undermine the free-market principles that have made Texas a beacon of prosperity. Instead, we should champion policies that promote individual liberty, economic freedom, and responsible stewardship of resources. Failure provides us with valuable lessons, and too often, people want to mitigate this by expanding government intervention, which can be detrimental to our learning and growth. We are at a critical juncture in our state's history. The recent elections have shown us that Texans are ready for a change. The upcoming November elections present another opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to the principles that have made Texas great. While I am optimistic about our future, we must address the economic, political, and cultural challenges that threaten our way of life. Election Year Volatility and Policy Uncertainty One of the most pressing issues is the rise of big government. Across the political spectrum, there is a growing tendency to rely on government intervention to solve problems. This trend is particularly concerning in Texas, where we have traditionally prided ourselves on independence and self-reliance. Many of you might be demanding the government give you handouts or reap the benefits of federal, state, or local spending, but all this comes from taxpayers' pockets. We must try a different approach. Election year volatility adds another layer of complexity. Businesses and investors are left guessing about the future as policies swing with the political tide. This uncertainty can stall projects, delay investments, and increase costs. The aggregates and concrete industry, heavily reliant on long-term planning and stability, feels these effects acutely. Conclusion In conclusion, aggregates and concrete are vital for Texas's growth, but their smart use is paramount. Let's leverage the strengths of the free market, prioritize efficiency, and ensure that our infrastructure investments truly benefit Texans. As we progress, I am eager to collaborate with any of you on projects aligning with these principles. Together, we can build a stronger, more prosperous Texas. For those interested in further discussions on economic policy and free-market solutions, I invite you to check out my podcast, the Let People Prosper Show on all major platforms, and my Substack newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com, where I delve into these topics in greater detail. You can also visit my website, VanceGinn.com, for more information and resources. Thank you for your time and attention. Let's work together to build a future where smart infrastructure investment and strong institutions pave the way for a prosperous Texas.  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:
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:
Expected Outcomes
Economic Gains
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.  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.  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. |
Vance Ginn, Ph.D.
|
||
RSS Feed
Proudly powered by Weebly