I understand those concerns. As a father and economist, I want every child to thrive. But something can be beneficial without becoming a government responsibility. Families should choose how to raise and educate their children, while government focuses on protecting rights and enforcing the law.
​
Government Helps Make Childcare Unaffordable

According to Child Care Aware of America⁠, average childcare prices reached $13,184 annually in 2025. Before calling for more subsidies, policymakers should examine the rules driving those costs.

Staffing ratios, credential mandates, licensing requirements, zoning restrictions, and high taxes all limit supply and raise expenses. Research on childcare regulations⁠ estimates that allowing one additional child per caregiver could reduce center-based childcare prices by 9% to 20%.

Credential requirements can also exclude capable providers. Federal Head Start rules require bachelor’s degrees for many teachers, even though a degree does not automatically make someone better at caring for young children. Government should prevent abuse and neglect without dictating every detail of childcare.

Bianca King’s experience illustrates the problem. After losing her job during the pandemic, she opened a home daycare in Lakeway, Texas. She registered with the state, passed an inspection, and served local families, but zoning restrictions threatened her business. The Institute for Justice documented her case⁠.

When regulations prevent willing providers from serving willing parents, families face fewer choices and higher prices. Property taxes and excessive government spending add to the burden by raising facility costs and reducing parents’ disposable income.

Subsidies Don’t Fix a Shortage

Government often responds to these self-created costs with taxpayer subsidies. But subsidies increase families’ purchasing power without necessarily increasing the number of available childcare slots. When supply remains limited, prices can rise.

Economist Ryan Bourne⁠ notes that subsidies may change who pays without reducing the underlying cost of care. Policymakers should therefore address barriers to supply rather than assume more spending will make childcare affordable.

Is Pre-K an Investment?

Supporters of taxpayer-funded pre-K often cite research showing benefits for children and working parents. Some programs have produced positive results, but a review of preschool research⁠ finds that many large-scale programs fail to deliver lasting academic gains.

Even consistent benefits would not automatically justify compulsory taxpayer funding. The U.S. Constitution grants no general childcare power, and state education responsibilities do not require unlimited public financing of pre-K or daycare.

Let Parents Choose

The better approach is to reduce the costs government creates: lower taxes, reform and eliminate property taxes, end unnecessary credential mandates, reconsider staffing rules, and allow more home-based and private providers.

Parents should decide whether to use daycare, private preschool, family care, faith-based providers, or stay home. Churches, charities, and communities can voluntarily help families facing hardship. Where public education already exists, education savings accounts can expand parental choice and competition without creating another open-ended subsidy.

Children deserve opportunities. Parents deserve choices. Taxpayers deserve restraint.

Government doesn’t need to fund everything worthwhile. Spend less. Tax less. Regulate less.

​What happens when local governments try to do more while struggling to perform their basic responsibilities?

Mark Moses, Senior Fellow at the California Policy Center and author of The Municipal Financial Crisis, joins me to discuss municipal finances, public pensions, government balance sheets, AI, data centers, and the expanding scope of local government.

We examine why an annual balanced budget can hide longer-term financial problems, what taxpayers should understand about pension obligations, and how government policies can affect innovation and investment.

The broader question connects it all: What should local government actually do, and what happens when it tries to do too much?

This is also a natural follow-up to our first Let People Prosper conversation in 2022.

​Get show notes at vanceginn.substack.com. 

Originally published at Kansas Policy Institute. 

For decades, Washington has made it easier for states to spend money without fully confronting the cost. That era may be coming to an end.

Kansas should see that as an opportunity.

A recent Washington Post editorial documents how dramatically the relationship between Washington and the states has changed. Federal transfers to states reached about $1.2 trillion in 2025, roughly 17 percent of federal spending. Federal money provided about 34 percent of state revenue nationwide in 2024, compared with 22 percent in 1989.

That arrangement allows Washington to collect or borrow money, route it through federal programs, and return it to states with requirements attached.

Kansas is less exposed than most. Federal funds supplied 24.9 percent of Kansas state revenue in fiscal 2024, compared with 34.2 percent nationwide.

But even Kansas has substantial reason to pay attention.

Washington is approaching $40 trillion in gross debt while continuing to run enormous annual deficits. That fiscal path cannot continue indefinitely. Federal aid to states, along with the rest of the federal budget, will face increasing pressure.

The wrong response in Topeka would be to assume that every dollar Washington removes must be replaced with another dollar from Kansas taxpayers.

Instead, ask why the money was being spent.

That is where Kansas has an underused advantage.

Kansas already has performance-based budgeting in state law. Agencies are supposed to provide goals, outcomes, and performance measures that help lawmakers judge whether programs are accomplishing what taxpayers are funding them to do.

Too often, though, those measures do not happen nor drive the budget conversation enough. They should.
Instead of beginning with last year’s appropriation and negotiating how much to add, lawmakers should start with results. What problem is a program solving? What evidence shows that it works? Is there a less expensive approach? Could businesses, nonprofits, families, or local communities handle the responsibility better?

Federal funding reductions would make those questions more important, not less.

Kansas also enters this discussion with spending already elevated. The 2027 Responsible Kansas Budget shows state-funded spending rising from $7.2 billion in fiscal 2005 to $22.3 billion in fiscal 2026. Spending has grown much faster over that period than the benchmark of population growth plus inflation.

So Kansas does not need another source of money to preserve every existing program. It needs better prioritization.

That means pairing serious performance reviews with a firm limit on overall spending growth. A strong Kansas spending limit would force policymakers to make tradeoffs instead of allowing higher revenues to continually ratchet spending upward.

Those savings have another purpose: tax relief.

When government requires fewer resources, Kansans can keep more of what they earn. Permanent reductions in broad-based income-tax rates would improve incentives for entrepreneurship, investment, work, and migration into Kansas. Over time, that can mean a larger private economy rather than a larger government economy.

This is the promise of federalism that gets overlooked.

Fifty states making more of their own decisions create more accountability, experimentation, and competition. Kansans can see more clearly what their government costs and compare its results with Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and beyond.

Washington’s fiscal troubles will create challenges for states. But they could also help reverse decades of centralization.

Kansas should use the opportunity to measure results, eliminate what isn’t working, restrain spending, lower taxes, and return more decisions to the people closest to them.
​
That would be a healthier federalism and a stronger Kansas.

Originally published at Kansas Policy Institute.

​Here’s a warning Kansas policymakers shouldn’t ignore.

When Washington recently eliminated federal funding for two nutrition-education positions in Kansas, the Frontier Extension District decided to keep the program. The result? A $192,000 property-tax increase on residents of Anderson, Franklin, and Osage counties.

That’s a small example of a much bigger problem: Kansas can’t assume Washington will keep paying the bills.

Kansas is fortunately less dependent on Washington than most states. According to Pew’s latest Census-based comparison, federal funds accounted for 24.9 percent of Kansas state revenue in FY2024, compared with 34.2 percent nationally. That’s much better than Louisiana, where 50.7 percent came from Washington. But one-fourth of Kansas revenue is still a major exposure.

The Kansas budget provides another perspective. KPI’s 2027 Responsible Kansas Budget reports about $27.8 billion in total FY2026 spending compared with $22.3 billion from state funds. That leaves roughly $5.5 billion tied to federal funding under this different accounting measure.

Now consider where that money originates.

Washington is approaching $40 trillion in gross national debt and is projected to spend about $7.4 trillion while collecting only $5.6 trillion this fiscal year. That’s roughly $1.32 spent for every $1 collected.

And the fiscal gap gets worse.

CBO projects annual deficits approaching $3.1 trillion by 2036. Debt held by the public is projected to rise from about 101 percent of GDP today to 120 percent in 2036 and 175 percent by 2056. Interest costs alone are projected to roughly double to $2.1 trillion annually by 2036.

Something eventually has to give. Federal grants to states will be an obvious place for Washington to look. Kansas should prepare now instead of waiting for Washington to force the issue.

This is also why federalism matters. States shouldn’t become administrative arms of Washington. Federalism keeps government closer to taxpayers and allows states to compete over taxes, spending, regulation, and services. Federal grants blur that accountability because Washington taxes or borrows the money, attaches strings, and sends it back.

When Washington stops paying, state and local taxpayers often get the bill.

Kansas shouldn’t respond by replacing every lost federal dollar with another state or local tax dollar, as in the Anderson County example above. Instead, lawmakers should use program-based budgeting effectively to review what government actually does. Every program should have a clear purpose, measurable outcomes, and regular evaluation. Policymakers should ask whether it works, whether taxpayers should fund it, and whether competition or the private sector could do it better. Kansas has a version of this in a years-old performance-based budget law that is largely ignored by governors and legislators.

For federally supported programs, add another question: Would Kansans choose to fund this themselves if Washington stopped paying? Then put a firm ceiling over the entire process.

Kansas should pass a Responsible Kansas Budget every year while imposing a strict spending limit based on population growth plus inflation. A better Taxpayer Bill of Rights could make that restraint harder to evade, require a supermajority to exceed the limit, and use excess revenue to permanently reduce broad-based income-tax rates.

Program-based budgeting helps lawmakers decide what deserves funding. A spending limit forces them to prioritize among those programs. You need both.

Competition completes the picture. Free markets and competition give providers incentives to innovate, economize, and serve people better. Better results at lower costs mean fewer taxpayer dollars are needed.

Kansas is in a better position to deal with declining federal funds than Louisiana and many other states. But lawmakers should heed the warning now instead of kicking it down the road.

Originally published on Substack. 

​I’ve been thinking about something since Labor Day.

We spent a day celebrating American workers. Then, within days, Washington gave us two very different proposals with something important in common.

President Trump recently proposed a $5,000 “Trump Dividend”⁠ for adult U.S. citizens if Republicans retain Congress. It would require congressional approval (no matter whether Trump thinks it doesn’t) and could cost about $1.2 trillion if paid to roughly 240 million adults.

Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance has championed a draft proposal that would let certain married families receive federal child-care assistance when one parent stays home with their children.

I understand why both ideas are attractive. Who doesn’t like getting a check?

But as an economist, a father of three, and someone who believes deeply in the value of work, I keep coming back to a different question: Why are we subsidizing everything?

One Subsidy Leads to Another

The argument for helping stay-at-home parents is actually pretty compelling.

Government already subsidizes daycare. If the family next door gets thousands of dollars because both parents work and their child goes to daycare, why should your family get nothing because Mom or Dad stays home?

I get it. But notice what happened.

Government subsidized one choice. That created an inequity. Now the proposed solution is another subsidy.

Think about college. Washington spent decades subsidizing higher education. That helped make college artificially attractive relative to apprenticeships, trades, and entering the workforce directly. Then, when student debt became a major problem, Washington’s answer was more subsidies and attempted debt cancellation.

One intervention creates distortions that become the justification for the next intervention. Pretty soon, we’re subsidizing everything.

There Is No Free Dividend

Trump’s “dividend” illustrates the fiscal problem.

A corporation pays dividends from profits. Washington is not earning a profit. It is already running an estimated $2.1 trillion deficit⁠ this fiscal year.

Vice President Vance suggested tariff revenue could help finance the checks. But CBO estimates tariffs have generated about $167 billion so far this fiscal year, nowhere close to the potential $1.2 trillion cost.

And as I’ve written repeatedly⁠, tariffs aren’t free money from foreign countries. They are taxes collected on imports that raise costs for Americans.

Tax Americans, then send some of the money back as a “dividend”? That isn’t prosperity. There is no free government money. Somebody pays.

Families Know Better

This is where it becomes personal for me.

I think a mother choosing to stay home with her children can make a wonderful choice. But I don’t want Washington paying her to make it.

I also don’t want Washington pushing another mother toward the workforce because government has made daycare artificially cheaper.

My wife and I both own businesses. We largely work from home. We have three kids. We’ve made choices about work, school, and family that fit us.

Other families should choose differently.

Homeschool. Use daycare. Build a business. Work full time. Stay home. Have grandparents help.

Good. I don’t know what is best for them. Neither does Washington.

Work Still Matters

That brings me back to Labor Day.

Work is about much more than GDP. It lets us use our talents, provide for our families, serve others, and build something valuable.

Markets help us discover where those talents are needed. When electricians become scarce, wages rise. People notice. Workers train. Businesses respond.

Nobody in Washington needs to know exactly how many electricians America needs. Prices, wages, profits, and losses communicate that information through millions of voluntary decisions.

Help People Rise

None of this means abandoning people who genuinely need help. I’ve argued for years that the goal of a safety net should be to help people become independent, not simply enroll more people in government programs.

That’s why I developed Empowerment Accounts⁠. The idea is to simplify assistance, connect work-capable people with work and social capital, and make self-sufficiency the goal. Families help families. Churches help neighbors. Charities serve communities. Businesses create jobs. Government does not have a monopoly on compassion.

Let People Prosper

So maybe that’s what has been bothering me since Labor Day. We celebrated work and the American worker. Then Washington went back to debating who should get the next check.

I think we have it backward.

Government doesn’t need to subsidize every choice. It should stop creating so many distortions in the first place.
​
The American Dream isn’t getting a bigger check from Washington. It’s building a life where you don’t need one.

What can state spending tell us about a state’s economic future?

Quite a lot.

Between 2016 and 2025, state-funded spending grew 65.8%, more than twice the 32.4% increase in population growth plus inflation. Had every state followed that sustainable benchmark, taxpayers could have retained an estimated $1.8 trillion.

In this episode of This Week’s Economy, I explain why sustainable budgeting is the foundation of sustainable tax relief, highlight the strongest and weakest states, and show why spending restraint matters for families, businesses, and future prosperity.

Colorado, North Dakota, and Texas emerged as the gold-standard states. California, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York ranked among the largest overspenders.

The central question is one every taxpayer should ask:

Is government growing faster than the people paying for it?

Listen to the full episode and see where your state stands.

​Watch the full episode, subscribe, and visit VanceGinn.com for more economic insights, and get show notes and subscribe to my newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com.

Originally published on Substack.

​​Texas leaders are finally talking about spending restraint. That is welcome. But Texans should not confuse a smaller agency request with a smaller government.
​
Governor Greg Abbott, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, and Speaker Dustin Burrows recently directed most state agencies⁠ to reduce their base budget requests by 3% for the 2028–29 biennium.

Abbott promised “strict standards of efficiency and accountability,” Patrick said the guidance would keep Texas on a “fiscally conservative path,” and Burrows called it the baseline for a conservative budget focused on affordability and property tax relief. Those are worthy goals.

Now comes the hard part: proving it.

Three Percent of What?

A 3% reduction sounds substantial until taxpayers ask the obvious question: 3% below what?

Is the “base” last session’s agency request, the amount lawmakers appropriated, actual spending, or some administratively adjusted figure? The announcement does not make that comparison clear enough.

That matters because agencies are not being ordered to cut state spending by 3%. They are being asked to request 3% less from a baseline, while retaining the ability to seek additional money through exceptional items. Public education, Medicaid caseload growth, debt service, employee benefits, and education savings accounts are among the major exemptions.

Without clear accounting, agencies and lawmakers could maneuver around the target, increase total appropriations, and still claim a fiscal victory during an election year.

Texans deserve transparent budgeting that shows, side by side, the last appropriation, current estimated spending, the proposed appropriation, and the population-growth-plus-inflation benchmark.

Compare Apples to Apples

The correct comparison is appropriations to appropriations, not spending in one period against appropriations in another. Mixing those measures is an apples-to-oranges comparison that can disguise government growth.

On an apples-to-apples basis, state funds appropriations increased 42% over the last two budget cycles, while population growth plus inflation increased about 25%.

As I said in our joint statement from fiscal conservatives⁠, spending has substantially outpaced the average taxpayer’s ability to pay. Without actual appropriations cuts, the 3% request policy risks becoming “window dressing for political points in an election year.”

Jeramy Kitchen put it well: the goal should not merely be a smaller request but “restoring a culture of fiscal responsibility.” Bill Peacock noted that state funds appropriations have risen $110 billion, or 78%, over ten years, feeding a system organized around special interests. JoAnn Fleming was even more direct: conservatives did not fight merely to slow government growth. “We fought to shrink government.”

Property Taxes Still Rise

State leaders also cite $51 billion in property tax relief. But policymakers should explain exactly how that figure is calculated.

It is not all school district maintenance and operations rate compression. It also includes homestead exemptions and other tax preferences. Those are not economically equivalent.

Broad-based compression lowers rates for everyone. Exemptions narrow the tax base, shift burdens among property owners, and require more state tax revenue to finance the same level of government.

Meanwhile, total local property tax levies reached $89.4 billion in 2025, up roughly 22% since 2021. Historic “relief” alongside rising total levies tells us the underlying problem remains: excessive state and local spending.

Cut the Budget, Then the Tax

Texas can eliminate school district M&O property taxes through recurring surpluses dedicated to permanent rate compression. But those surpluses should come from disciplined budgeting, not temporary revenue windfalls or larger tax collections elsewhere.

Lawmakers should cut appropriations, keep future growth below population growth plus inflation, eliminate lower-priority programs, and strengthen state and local spending limits.

Real fiscal conservatism is not measured by press releases or shifting baselines. It is measured by a smaller government, lower tax burdens, and more freedom for Texans.

Spend less. Tax less. Let Texans prosper.