Originally published on Substack. 

How should policy folks read Tuesday’s primaries?

Maybe the way families experience government: not as a scoreboard, but as a preview of what comes next.
Elections choose candidates. Budgets choose outcomes.

If the policy output is higher costs, higher taxes, and more government control, voters will not care who won the primary. They will care that their taxes keep rising.

Across Texas, North Carolina, and Arkansas, the same governing reality shows up in different forms.

Tax relief and economic opportunity depend on one discipline that almost nobody wants to talk about when the cameras are on: spending restraint. Without it, every “conservative” promise becomes temporary and every affordability problem gets worse.

Texas is giving lawmakers a clear direction on taxes and spending

Republicans are headed to a tight May U.S. Senate runoff between Sen. John Cornyn and Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Democrats nominated State Rep. James Talarico for Senate after Rep. Jasmine Crockett conceded.

For governor, Gov. Greg Abbott won the Republican nomination and Rep. Gina Hinojosa won the Democratic nomination, setting up November.

These outcomes are also reflected in the official Texas Secretary of State results.

Those races, and others like former State Senator Don Huffines winning the race for Texas Comptroller over Kelly Hancock, State Rep. Brian Harrison winning big over big-government candidates, are important.

But the most important signal did not come from a candidate. It came from the Republican primary ballot propositions, which operate like a “voter memo” to lawmakers.

In plain terms, Texas GOP primary voters endorsed the idea that eliminating school district property taxes should be pursued through spending reductions.

That wording matters because it answers the central fiscal question: Do we want tax relief that is structurally funded, or tax relief that depends on temporary money and political will?

The proposition language and broader ballot context are explained well in KUT’s guide to the propositions and the Texas Standard breakdown.

This dovetails with Gov. Abbott elevating school district property tax elimination as a priority heading into the 2027 legislative session. The policy test for lawmakers is not whether they can announce “relief.” The test is whether they can make relief permanent.

Why is that hard? Because school district maintenance and operations taxes are a major funding stream, roughly 40%+ of total local property taxes in Texas.

Replacing them with state dollars immediately or over time without a binding spending limit on state and local government will turn a popular reform into a long-term fiscal trap.

There is also a second, equally important reality for Texas policymakers. State property tax relief can be offset locally if cities, counties, and other taxing entities continue expanding spending and debt. That is why the propositions focusing on spending reductions and voter checks are so important. The public instinct is correct.

People want government to live within limits and stop backfilling relief with higher local burdens.

This is the framework behind my work on Texas fiscal policy: pair surplus-driven property tax compression or buy-down with a strict spending limit at both the state and local levels.

Relief without limits is temporary. Limits make relief durable. The broader blueprint is in my writings.

North Carolina is a reminder that competitiveness can be lost quickly

North Carolina’s primaries produced a high-profile U.S. Senate matchup between Roy Cooper and Michael Whatley.

That matters nationally because Senate control shapes whether Washington pursues any serious spending restraint or continues drifting toward higher debt and larger federal reach.

But there is also a state-level lesson that policymakers should not miss.

North Carolina has been attracting people and investment because it is relatively more competitive than many alternatives.

That advantage is fragile. If spending grows faster than the private economy, taxes eventually rise, regulations expand, and affordability deteriorates.

Growth becomes a reason for more government instead of an opportunity to lock in pro-growth reform.
For families, the lived experience of this drift is not abstract. It is higher housing costs, higher energy costs, and fewer options.

For policymakers, the fix is still the same. Control spending growth. Reduce barriers to building and production. Keep tax relief tied to fiscal discipline.

Arkansas shows what steady policy looks like

Arkansas had a calmer primary, with Sen. Tom Cotton advancing without drama.

The bigger lesson is not the headline, it is the pattern. States that keep taxes moving down and spending growth under control tend to build momentum that compounds.

Businesses respond to predictability. Families respond to affordability. Voters often reward results when they can feel them.

What policymakers should take away

This is the through-line across all three states.

1. Primaries pick candidates. Budgets pick outcomes.
2. Tax relief is only durable when spending is restrained.
3. Local fiscal growth can erase state relief unless the local spending loophole is closed.
4. When government grows faster than taxpayers can pay, affordability deteriorates and trust collapses.

Closing and call to action

If lawmakers want these primaries to mean something, they should treat them as permission to do the hard part. Put enforceable limits on state and local spending growth. Make tax relief structural, not temporary.

In Texas specifically, the Republican primary propositions provided a clear direction: if you want to eliminate school district property taxes, do it by reducing spending growth and locking in discipline before the next budget cycle resets the baseline.

For policymakers and staff, I welcome the chance to discuss model language for spending limits, surplus-driven tax relief, and closing the local loophole so relief actually sticks.
​
For media, I am available for interviews and background discussions on what these primary results signal for fiscal policy in Texas, North Carolina, and Arkansas.

​Washington never runs out of ideas for spending money it doesn’t have.

This episode of the Let People Prosper Show takes on one of the latest examples: so-called “Trump Accounts.” Marketed as a pro-family, pro-capitalism idea, they’re actually another case of federal social engineering through the tax code—layered on top of an already broken fiscal foundation.

To unpack it all, I sat down with Veronique de Rugy, one of the sharpest and most honest fiscal minds in America. She’s the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy at the Mercatus Center and a nationally syndicated columnist who has spent her career calling out budget gimmicks, cronyism, and policies that trade long-term prosperity for short-term politics.

She was last on the show in Episode 102, discussing immigration and American values. This time, we dive into deficits, tariffs, inflation, entitlement pressure, and why Washington’s obsession with using the tax code to “fix” social problems often makes things worse.

🎧 Watch or listen to the full episode on ⁠YouTube⁠, ⁠Apple Podcast,⁠ or ⁠Spotify⁠, and visit ⁠my website vanceginn.com⁠ for more information about my work at Ginn Economic Consulting.

​Economic policy affects more than just spreadsheets. When leaders fail to control spending, undermine markets, or delay hard decisions, families feel it through higher prices, fewer opportunities, and slower growth. 

With rising concerns about affordability, the consequences of poor economic policy aren’t abstract — they shape how people live, work, and plan for the future. Price controls, restrictive immigration policies, and higher taxes don’t solve these problems. They make them worse.

In the episode of This Week’s Economy, we examine what happens when policymakers ignore first principles. I break down why recurring shutdowns expose deeper budgeting failures, how states are approaching tax relief and economic freedom, what a new pick for Fed chair could mean for inflation and stability, and why labor shortages and immigration policy matter for long-term growth. Across each issue, the lesson is the same: prosperity follows discipline, sound incentives, and trust in markets — not political shortcuts.

Catch the full episode on YouTube, Apple Podcast, or Spotify, and visit my website at vanceginn.com for show notes and more information about my work at Ginn Economic Consulting.

​It goes by many names: cronyism, corporatism, political favoritism, corporate welfare, and more. No matter what you call it, it’s the same idea — government picking winners and losers in our economy. Some companies get special treatment through subsidies, tax breaks, loopholes, government contracts, low-interest loans, or in-kind support.
In short, whenever the government promises a company a shortcut or special favor, that’s corporate welfare in action. It undermines competition, punishes smaller competitors, and costs taxpayers. It happens at every governmental level — local, state, and federal — and it’s always the public who pays the price.
In today’s episode of This Week’s Economy, we’ll unpack the real costs of corporate welfare — who truly benefits, and who gets left behind. You can catch the full episode on YouTube, Apple Podcast, or Spotify. Visit: VanceGinn.com. Subscribe: VanceGinn.Substack.com