Originally published at the Kansas Policy Institute.

The latest bad idea from the global policy class is dressed up as compassion: the world needs less growth. That may sell at international conferences. It should not sell in Kansas.

In a recent piece for the American Institute for Economic Research’s The Daily Economy,“The Poverty of the UN’s Degrowth Agenda,” I explained why the push to move “beyond growth” would leave people poorer, more dependent, and less free. Advocates talk about fairness and sustainability. The result is fewer jobs, less innovation, higher costs, and a smaller future for families trying to get ahead. Kansas does not need that mindset. It has already seen what slow growth does.

The 2026 Kansas Green Book shows Kansas has ranked near the bottom since 1998 in private-sector job growth, private-sector wage growth, GDP growth, and domestic migration. That is not just a data problem. It is a dinner-table problem. When opportunity fades, people leave. Young workers look elsewhere. Businesses expand in states with lower costs and fewer barriers. Families stay only if the numbers still work.

Kansas has real strengths: productive land, capable workers, strong communities, energy resources, manufacturers, logistics advantages, and entrepreneurs who know how to create value. But those strengths can be wasted when the government makes it too expensive to live, hire, invest, and build. 

Recent data show both promise and caution.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that Kansas had the fastest real GDP growth in the nation in the third quarter of 2025 at 6.5 percent annualized. Personal income grew 6.3 percent, also the fastest in the country. Production led the way, with agriculture playing a major role.

That was encouraging. But one strong quarter does not fix a long-term weakness.

The latest BEA first-quarter 2026 report shows U.S. real GDP grew 2.1 percent annualized, while Kansas grew only 1.0 percent. Real GDP increased in 46 states and the District of Columbia. Kansas grew, but it trailed the national pace and remained far from the top performers.

Kansas can grow when people produce more. But it will not sustain growth if policymakers keep accepting high costs, weak competitiveness, and too much government.

Farmers need lower costs and fewer policy shocks. Manufacturers need reliable energy and a better tax climate. Small businesses need less red tape. Families need property taxes that do not punish them for staying in their homes.

As I wrote in “Kansas Has a Cost Problem,” the state collects and spends too much for the results it delivers. Every dollar spent by the government first comes from someone who earned it. There is no free lunch in Topeka. There is only a bill shifted to taxpayers, consumers, property owners, or future generations.

Kansas should start with a responsible budget that grows no faster than population growth plus inflation. Americans for Tax Reform’s Sustainable Budget Project shows how much room Kansas could have created for lasting tax relief if spending had followed that simple limit over the last decade.

That is not austerity. It is discipline.

Kansas should also stop mistaking subsidies for strategy. Ribbon cuttings make good headlines, but favored deals rarely make good economics. As I argued in “Subsidies Cost Kansans Even When Revenues Rise,” every special deal has an opportunity cost. Money used to privilege one company cannot be used to lower rates for everyone.

That matters for agriculture, energy, housing, manufacturing, and technology. Kansas should welcome investment, but with a clear rule: pay your way. Do not ask families and existing businesses to subsidize politically connected projects.

Growth built on favoritism is fragile. Growth “planned” by a policymaker from any political party is no growth at all. Growth built on freedom lasts.

The poverty of the degrowth agenda is that it treats prosperity as something to ration instead of something to unleash. Kansas should reject that error in every form.

Kansas can drift, or Kansas can lead. But it will not lead by producing less, taxing more, subsidizing favorites, or accepting average results.

Originally published on Substack. 

California should be one of the most prosperous places on earth. It has world-class universities, abundant natural resources, extraordinary entrepreneurs, and some of the most talented workers anywhere.

For generations, California represented opportunity. People moved there to build businesses, buy homes, raise families, and pursue the American Dream.

Today, many are leaving.

Housing costs are among the highest in America. Businesses continue relocating. Budget deficits return despite enormous tax collections. And many Californians feel they’re paying more and getting less.

What happened?

California didn’t become unaffordable because it lacked resources. It became unaffordable because government grew faster than the people paying for it.

That’s the lesson from the latest data in my work on the Sustainable Budget Project⁠ for Americans for Tax Reform, which evaluates whether government spending grows faster than population growth plus inflation—the best measure of average taxpayer’s ability to support government over time.

California isn’t slightly above that benchmark. It’s far above it.

When Spending Grows Faster Than Families Can Afford

Politicians often talk as though budget problems are revenue problems. They aren’t.

Government can only spend what it first takes from the productive economy through taxes, fees, borrowing, or inflation.

Spending is the burden. Taxes are simply the bill.

Figure 1: California Budget Comparison

Figure 1. California’s spending has dramatically outpaced a Sustainable Budget path for more than a decade.

According to the California Sustainable Budget Project report⁠, California’s all-funds budget more than doubled over the last decade, rising from roughly $250 billion to more than $500 billion annually.

Meanwhile, a Sustainable Budget path based on population growth plus inflation would have grown far more slowly. The result is stunning.

California accumulated nearly $1 trillion in excess all-funds spending above a Sustainable Budget path over the last decade. That’s not a one-year anomaly. That’s a decade-long pattern.

Government Grew Three Times Faster Than Californians

The second chart tells policymakers everything they need to know.
​
Figure 2: Average Budget Growth Per Period

Figure 2. California government spending grew roughly three times faster than population growth plus inflation.
​
From 2016 through 2025:

• State-funds spending grew 7.9% annually.
• All-funds spending grew 8.2% annually.
• Population growth plus inflation grew just 2.7% annually.

Think about that.

Government grew about three times faster than the taxpayers and economy supporting it. No family can sustainably increase spending three times faster than its income forever. Neither can government.

Eventually, the costs show up somewhere. Higher taxes. Higher housing costs. More regulation. Less affordability. Slower economic growth.

California’s affordability crisis wasn’t created overnight. It was built one budget at a time.

People Are Responding Exactly As Economics Predicts

The consequences extend far beyond the budget.

As I’ve written before in my analysis of Responsible State Budgets Across the United States⁠, states that consistently allow government to grow faster than their economies eventually weaken the conditions that create prosperity.

California now ranks near the bottom nationally in economic freedom, fiscal policy, and regulatory competitiveness. That’s not a coincidence.

When government expands faster than the private economy, economic freedom declines. When regulations multiply, housing becomes harder to build. When spending rises, taxes eventually follow. When affordability disappears, families and businesses look elsewhere.

People vote with their feet. And increasingly, they are.

California Can Still Be Great Again

The good news is that California’s future does not have to look like its recent past. The state still possesses enormous advantages. Its people remain innovative. Its businesses remain productive. Its universities remain world-class. Its potential remains extraordinary.

But prosperity will not return by expanding the same policies that created today’s challenges. It starts with restoring spending discipline.

Figure 3: California Budget Limits

Figure 3. A Sustainable Budget still allows spending growth while protecting taxpayers and economic growth.
​
One of the biggest misconceptions about spending restraint is that it requires budget cuts. It doesn’t. Under the Sustainable Budget framework, California’s budget would still increase, though it would decrease given overspending.

State-funds spending could grow from approximately $348 billion to $359 billion in FY2027. That’s not austerity. That’s sustainability.

A Better Path Forward

California doesn’t need more government programs. It needs more opportunity. That means limiting spending growth to less than population growth plus inflation. It means reducing barriers to housing construction so families can afford to live where they work. It means reforming regulations that make it harder to start businesses, hire workers, and invest. It means keeping more resources in the productive private sector where entrepreneurs, workers, and investors create prosperity.

Most importantly, it means trusting people more than politicians.

California became an economic powerhouse because people were free to build, innovate, invest, and create. The path forward is rediscovering those principles.

The Choice Is Between More Government and More Opportunity

California still has everything it needs to succeed. The question is whether policymakers will allow it. The Sustainable Budget Project offers a simple framework: Allow government to grow. Just don’t let it grow faster than taxpayers can afford.

That’s not radical. It’s responsible.

And it’s exactly the kind of fiscal discipline that helped make California the land of opportunity in the first place. California didn’t lose the plot overnight. But it can start writing a better chapter today.

What Do You Think?

Should states constitutionally limit spending growth to population growth plus inflation?

Leave a comment below and join the conversation.

If you found this analysis valuable, please share it, restack it, and subscribe for future installments in this 50-state Sustainable Budget Project series.

And if you’d like to support my work researching, writing, speaking, podcasting, and advancing policies that let people prosper, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Together, we can advance economic freedom, fiscal responsibility, and human flourishing.

Originally published on Substack. 

​I’ve lived in Texas for 43 of my 44 years. I was born near Houston in November 1981. I grew up in South Houston. I earned my doctorate in Lubbock. I’m raising my family near Austin.
​
The only year I lived outside of Texas was during my service in the Trump 45 White House, when my family and I lived in McLean, Virginia.

I’ve spent my life watching Texas become the economic envy of America. People and businesses didn’t move here because government was bigger. They came because taxes were lower, regulations were lighter, housing was more affordable, and opportunity was greater.

The Texas model worked. But success can create complacency. And that’s what concerns me today.
Texas remains one of the strongest economies in America. Yet recent budget decisions suggest policymakers are beginning to drift away from the principles that made Texas successful in the first place.

That’s why the new Sustainable Budget Project⁠ by Americans for Tax Reform⁠ is so important. The project evaluates every state using a simple benchmark: government spending should generally grow no faster than population growth plus inflation. That reflects the average taxpayer’s ability to pay for government without sacrificing economic growth and opportunity.

Texas performs better than many states. But the trend lines deserve attention.

The Good News: Texas Hasn’t Lost Its Fiscal Foundation Completely

One of the most surprising findings from the Texas data in the Sustainable Budget Project⁠ is that Texas remains relatively close to a Sustainable Budget path over the last decade.

Chart 1: Texas Budget Comparison

In fact, ATR’s data show Texas spent less than a Sustainable Budget path on a cumulative basis over the last decade. For state funds, the cumulative amount was about $10,000 less per family of four than the Sustainable Budget benchmark.

That’s worth celebrating. It reflects reforms enacted over many years and the benefits of a growing economy. But it would be a mistake to stop the analysis there.

The Warning Sign Policymakers Shouldn’t Ignore

The decade-long trend looks better than what happened recently. Much better. Over the last two budget cycles, Texas lawmakers had a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

The state collected more than $50 billion in budget surpluses.

Those funds could have been used to permanently reduce the tax burden, accelerate the elimination of school district M&O property taxes, strengthen reserves, or return more money to taxpayers.

Instead, state appropriations surged.

The final 2026-27 budget reached approximately $338 billion in all funds, the largest budget in Texas history. State funds increased by 42% over the last two budget cycles, far exceeding population growth plus inflation.
​
Table 1. Texas State Appropriations Comparison

This is where the Sustainable Budget Project becomes so valuable. It doesn’t merely tell us where we’ve been. It helps us see where we’re headed.

Success Is Not a Permanent Condition

One reason Texas has prospered is because it consistently outperformed states that expanded government faster than their economies.

California provides the obvious example.

High taxes. High spending. High housing costs. Heavy regulation. People and businesses voted with their feet. Many came to Texas. But there is no guarantee that advantage lasts forever.
Economic freedom is not self-executing. It must be protected.

As I’ve written before in both my work on sustainable budgets and in “Texas Is Budgeting Like California,” states that allow government spending to grow faster than taxpayers’ ability to support it eventually lose their competitive edge.

Texas is still winning.
​
The danger is assuming that means it always will.

What a Sustainable Budget Looks Like

The goal isn’t necessarily austerity. It’s sustainability.

Chart 2: FY2027 Texas Budget Limit

According to ATR’s calculations, Texas could increase state-funds spending from approximately $98.2 billion in FY2026 to about $102.8 billion in FY2027 and remain within a Sustainable Budget framework.

Government can grow. It simply shouldn’t grow faster than population growth plus inflation.

That’s the formula I’ve advocated for more than a decade because it aligns government growth with taxpayers’ ability to pay. It leaves more resources in the productive private sector where innovation, investment, job creation, and rising incomes occur. (GINN ECONOMIC CONSULTING⁠)

Three Lessons for Texas Policymakers

First, don’t mistake past success for future success.

Texas remains a national leader, but recent spending trends should concern anyone who values limited government.

Second, surpluses should buy down taxes through lower tax rates, not grow government.

The best use of surplus revenue is permanent tax relief, particularly the state should reduce and ultimately eliminate school district M&O property taxes, considering the state doesn’t have a personal income tax.

Third, Texas needs stronger spending limits.

Recent reforms improved the state’s expenditure limit, but additional reforms are needed. The strongest path forward is a constitutional spending limit based on population growth plus inflation that covers the broadest possible share of the budget at the state and local levels with surpluses towards lowering taxes. (GINN ECONOMIC CONSULTING⁠)

Closing Thoughts

Texas became the Texas model because policymakers generally trusted people more than government. They restrained spending. They kept taxes relatively low. They allowed entrepreneurs, workers, and families to build prosperity. That formula worked.

The Sustainable Budget Project shows Texas remains in a stronger position than many states. But it also highlights a critical warning. Recent budget growth is moving in the wrong direction.

If Texas continues allowing government spending to grow faster than population growth plus inflation, the advantages that attracted millions of Americans here can fade surprisingly quickly.

Texas doesn’t need bigger government. Texas needs to recommit to the principles that made it successful. Economic freedom. Fiscal responsibility. Sustainable budgeting. And the belief that prosperity comes from people, not politicians.

What Do You Think?
​
Should Texas constitutionally limit spending growth to population growth plus inflation

Originally published on Substack. 

​This week reinforced a lesson that cuts across nearly every policy debate in America:
​
People work better than government.

That may sound obvious, but it’s amazing how often policymakers forget it.

Whether the topic is poverty, jobs, housing, taxes, budgets, or inflation, the instinct in Washington and many state capitals is often the same: create another program, spend more money, or expand government authority. Yet the evidence continues to point in the opposite direction.

Take economic mobility. In my recent article for The Daily Economy⁠, later republished by RealClearMarkets⁠, I challenged the myth that America has a permanent underclass trapped in poverty.

The reality is that most people move through income brackets over their lifetimes as they gain skills, build careers, start businesses, and accumulate wealth. The goal of public policy shouldn’t be managing outcomes—it should be expanding opportunities.
​
The same principle showed up in the latest U.S. jobs report.

​While headlines celebrated job growth, my analysis found much of the increase came from government and government-dependent sectors. A bigger government payroll is not the same thing as a stronger economy. Lasting prosperity comes from productive private-sector growth, entrepreneurship, investment, and innovation. That’s where rising living standards come from, not government expansion.
​
Housing affordability tells a similar story. In my recent RealClearMarkets commentary⁠, I argued that America’s affordability challenges stem largely from supply constraints.

​Too many policymakers focus on restricting growth instead of expanding supply. Whether it’s housing, energy, water, or data centers, abundance—not scarcity—is the path to lower prices and greater opportunity.
​
The question of ownership remains central as well. In my latest property tax work, including Wyoming’s path toward property tax relief⁠, I continued making the case that if government can tax your property forever, ownership is incomplete.

Families should own their homes, not rent them from government through perpetual taxation. The solution starts with spending restraint and using surpluses to reduce and ultimately eliminate property taxes.
​
That same spending restraint is at the heart of the Sustainable Budget Project. Whether examining Alabama’s $18,000 spending problem⁠ or Alaska’s resource trap⁠, the lesson remains remarkably consistent: government spending that grows faster than population growth plus inflation eventually leads to higher taxes, slower growth, and fewer opportunities.

They’re largely the result of inflation, Federal Reserve policy, rising funding costs, and increased lending risks. When policymakers abandon fiscal discipline, families eventually pay the price.
​
One of the highlights of the week was seeing my work published internationally through the Instituto de Liberdade Econômica⁠, where I made the case that free-market capitalism remains the greatest engine of prosperity ever discovered.

No economic system has done more to lift people out of poverty, improve living standards, and expand opportunity.
​
My economic episode this week was on how government failures hurt our ability to prosper in many ways.

Across all these issues, the lesson is the same. Economic mobility requires opportunity. Housing affordability requires abundance. Ownership requires property rights. Growth requires entrepreneurship. Prosperity requires freedom.

Government has an important role, but it cannot replace families, businesses, churches, charities, and communities. Those institutions remain the real engines of human flourishing.

The more we trust people, the more they prosper. And that’s exactly what public policy should be designed to achieve.

Originally published on Kansas Policy Institute. 

​Kansas wheat country is facing a hard year. Drought has damaged winter wheat across the Plains, and the latest crop tour estimates point to a much smaller harvest than last year.

That should matter to every Kansas policymaker, not just farmers.

For many farm families in Kansas, this is not an abstract policy discussion. A weak wheat crop means lower income, difficult insurance decisions, stress on operating loans, postponed purchases, and real uncertainty about what comes next. Many producers are carrying a heavy burden this season.

The 2026 Wheat Quality Council tour projected Kansas wheat yield potential at 38.9 bushels per acre, below the recent tour average and well below last year’s strong harvest. Kansas farmers produced nearly 347 million bushels in 2025 with an average yield of 51 bushels per acre. Some models now suggest production could fall around 31% from last year.

Weather is not something Topeka can control. But economic resilience is.

That matters not only to producers, but to the entire Kansas economy. When agriculture takes a hit, the ripple effects reach equipment dealers, truckers, rail, grain handling, processors, Main Street businesses, and local communities across the state.

Kansas has always depended heavily on agriculture, and that should remain a strength. Wheat, cattle, sorghum, corn, soybeans, ethanol, milling, rail, trucking, and food processing are part of the state’s economic identity. But a rough wheat year exposes a bigger issue: Kansas needs a more resilient economy built on lower costs, more investment, more entrepreneurship, and more diversity in private-sector growth.

That does not mean abandoning agriculture. It means strengthening the entire economic ecosystem around it.

Farmers are already dealing with low prices, high input costs, interest rates, equipment expenses, property taxes, and federal policy uncertainty. One recent farm-income outlook projected Kansas net farm income at $8.67 billion, down about 5%, with crop producers pressured by weaker prices even when yields improve. A bad wheat harvest makes the squeeze worse.

The wrong answer is more dependency on subsidies, bailouts, or central planning. Those may temporarily soften losses, but they do not build long-term resilience. They often lock producers into Washington’s political cycles and discourage the kind of innovation Kansas needs.

The better answer is a stronger private economy.

Start with taxes and spending. Kansas collects and spends too much relative to faster-growing states. The 2026 Green Book makes the competitiveness problem clear: Kansas ranks in the middle of the pack on taxes while stronger states keep moving ahead. Kansas cannot build resilience by making production more expensive.

That is why a Responsible Kansas Budget matters. Spending restraint is not just a budget exercise. It is an economic development strategy. When government spends less, it can tax less. When it taxes less, farmers, families, and businesses keep more of their own money to invest, save, hire, and adapt.
Kansas should also make it easier to build value-added agriculture. More processing, milling, biofuels, livestock capacity, storage, logistics, and specialty manufacturing can help farmers capture more value closer to home. That requires faster permitting, lower energy costs, better infrastructure, and fewer regulatory barriers.

Energy abundance is especially important. Agriculture is energy-intensive. Fertilizer, irrigation, grain drying, trucking, rail, refrigeration, processing, and manufacturing all depend on reliable and affordable energy. Kansas should welcome new generation, transmission, private power arrangements, and market-based energy solutions instead of letting politics block supply.

Workforce matters too. Rural Kansas needs more entrepreneurs, tradespeople, mechanics, welders, truck drivers, nurses, teachers, and technology workers. That means better education options, less occupational licensing red tape, and a tax climate that attracts families rather than pushing them out. Kansas has already lost $361 million in AGI from domestic migration in one recent year. A resilient state cannot keep losing people and income.

The wheat harvest is a warning. When one major sector takes a hit, the rest of the economy must be strong enough to absorb the shock. That strength does not come from government programs. It comes from freedom, investment, diversification, and low costs.

Kansas should protect agriculture by making Kansas more competitive for everything around agriculture: energy, logistics, processing, technology, manufacturing, housing, health care, and entrepreneurship.

A bad crop year is painful. But it can also clarify the path forward. Kansas does not need more government management. It needs a freer, more flexible economy where farmers and businesses can adapt faster than policymakers can write rules.

That is how Kansas becomes more resilient.

Originally published on Substack.

Alaska is one of the most fascinating states in America.
​
It has no statewide income tax, abundant natural resources, and a unique system that sends annual dividend checks to residents through the Alaska Permanent Fund.

For many, Alaska represents a model of economic freedom.

But beneath those advantages lies a challenge that should concern every policymaker.

Alaska has become increasingly dependent on government spending financed by volatile oil and gas revenues.

When resource prices rise, government spending tends to rise with them. When revenues fall, budget shortfalls emerge, reserves are drained, and lawmakers scramble for solutions.

That’s not a recipe for long-term prosperity.

It’s a recipe for fiscal instability.

As Alaska lawmakers recently debated the state’s operating budget and the size of the Permanent Fund dividend, they were really debating a deeper question:

How can Alaska build a more sustainable future that relies less on government and more on private-sector growth?

That’s why the Sustainable Budget Project from Americans for Tax Reform is so valuable.

The project evaluates state budgets using a simple benchmark: government spending should generally grow no faster than population growth plus inflation. When spending grows faster than that benchmark, government consumes a larger share of resources that could otherwise remain with families, entrepreneurs, workers, and investors.

Alaska’s experience shows why that matters.

A Tale of Two Eras

One of the most interesting findings from the Alaska Sustainable Budget Project is that Alaska’s fiscal story over the last decade is really two stories.

Chart 1: Average Annual Budget Growth

Takeaway: Alaska exercised restraint before 2020 but spending accelerated significantly afterward.

Between 2016 and 2020, state-funds spending declined by an average of 5.7 percent annually while population growth plus inflation increased by 1.2 percent.

That was genuine spending restraint.

But after 2020, the trend reversed.

From 2021 through 2025, state-funds spending grew by 5.1 percent annually while all-funds spending increased by 6.4 percent annually. During the same period, population growth plus inflation grew by 3.6 percent.

The lesson isn’t that Alaska has always overspent.

The lesson is that temporary revenue surges often encourage permanent spending commitments.

That’s when sustainable budgeting matters most.

Small Gaps Become Big Costs

Some may look at Alaska’s spending figures and conclude there isn’t much cause for concern.

After all, Alaska’s spending growth has not matched the explosive increases seen elsewhere.

But budgets should be judged over time, not by a single year.

According to the Sustainable Budget Project, Alaska’s state-funds budget would have been approximately $8.5 billion in 2025 had spending followed population growth plus inflation over the last decade. Actual spending reached roughly $8.7 billion.

The annual gap appears modest.

The cumulative gap does not.

Over the last decade, Alaska accumulated approximately $2.8 billion in state-funds spending above a Sustainable Budget path.

For a family of four, that’s more than $15,000.
​
Chart 2: Alaska Budget Comparison

Takeaway: Even modest spending growth above sustainable levels compounds into billions of dollars over time.

Fiscal problems rarely emerge from one large spending increase. More often, they result from years of spending growth that gradually exceeds what taxpayers can support.

The Bigger Problem: Dependence

Alaska’s long-term challenge isn’t merely spending.

It’s dependence.

The state’s fiscal system remains heavily dependent on oil and gas activity, investment earnings, and federal dollars. Those revenue streams can be substantial, but they are also volatile.

A healthy economy cannot rely indefinitely on government redistributing resource wealth.

In fact, one of Alaska’s biggest opportunities is to rely less on redistribution and more on economic growth.

The Permanent Fund dividend is popular, but it is ultimately a mechanism for redistributing resource revenues through government. The better long-term path is expanding opportunities for people to earn more through productive private-sector activity and ending severance taxes that put the fiscal cost directly on oil and gas companies.

The private sector is far better than government at discovering what people want, when they want it, and at prices they are willing to pay.

That requires a growing economy, more investment, less dependence on government, and spending restraint that leaves more resources in productive hands.

A Better Path Forward

The good news is that a Sustainable Budget is not austerity.

It doesn’t require spending cuts or shrinking government overnight.

It simply provides a sustainable framework for growth.

Chart 3: FY2027 Sustainable Budget Limit

Takeaway: Alaska should rein in spending within a Sustainable Budget framework.

According to ATR’s calculations, Alaska’s state-funds budget could increase from approximately $8.9 billion in FY2026 to roughly $9.2 billion in FY2027 while remaining within a Sustainable Budget path.

Government would still grow. The difference is that spending would grow at a pace taxpayers can better support over time.

That approach would help Alaska improve fiscal stability, reduce future pressure for taxes, and create a stronger foundation for private-sector growth.

Three Key Takeaways for Policymakers

First, volatile revenues require spending restraint. Temporary revenue windfalls should not become permanent spending commitments.

Second, dependence is a risk. Alaska remains too dependent on oil and gas revenues and government redistribution rather than broad-based private-sector growth.

Third, sustainable spending supports prosperity. Limiting spending growth to population growth plus inflation creates more room for investment, entrepreneurship, job creation, and long-run economic opportunity.

Closing Thoughts

Alaska’s natural resources have created tremendous wealth.

The question is whether that wealth will continue fueling larger government or be used to expand economic opportunity.

The lesson from Alaska is not that government should never grow.

The lesson is that prosperity lasts when spending grows sustainably and people have greater freedom to create value in the private economy.

The Sustainable Budget Project reminds us that long-term success depends less on how much revenue government collects and more on whether spending remains aligned with what taxpayers can support.

Alabama showed how spending can gradually outpace taxpayers.

Alaska highlights a different challenge: allowing resource wealth to create dependence rather than opportunity.

If we’re serious about economic freedom, stronger growth, and greater prosperity, sustainable spending must be the foundation.

What Do You Think?

Should states limit spending growth to population growth plus inflation?

Leave a comment below and join the conversation.

If you found this analysis valuable, please share it, restack it, and subscribe for future installments in this Sustainable Budget Project series as I examine all 50 states.

And if you’d like to support my work researching, writing, speaking, podcasting, and advancing policies that let people prosper, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
​
Your support helps expand the reach of these ideas and strengthen the case for economic freedom, fiscal responsibility, and human flourishing.

Originally published on Substack. 

Imagine you’re sitting around the kitchen table trying to balance your family’s budget.

You got a raise this year. Prices increased a bit. Your family grew, and some expenses naturally went up.

But what if your spending increased twice as fast as your income and cost of living year after year?

Eventually, something would have to give.

You’d cut back. Reprioritize. Delay purchases. Look for efficiencies. In short, you’d exercise discipline because that’s what responsible budgeting requires.

Yet government often operates differently.

Most budget debates focus on how much revenue was collected, whether spending increased from the previous year, or which programs received more funding. Far fewer policymakers ask a more important question:

How fast should government grow?

That’s the question at the heart of my Sustainable Budget Project at Americans for Tax Reform.

The project uses a simple benchmark: government spending should change by less than population growth plus inflation. When spending consistently exceeds that rate, government claims a larger share of economic resources and leaves less with families, workers, entrepreneurs, and taxpayers.

Over the coming months, I’ll use this framework to examine states across the country.

Let’s start with Alabama.

Alabama’s Growing Spending Problem

Alabama is often viewed as a fiscally conservative state. Yet the data from the Alabama Sustainable Budget Project page tells a different story.

According to the project, Alabama’s state-funds budget grew from roughly $16 billion in 2016 to nearly $27 billion in 2025. Had spending simply followed population growth plus inflation, the budget would have been closer to $21.5 billion.

That’s a difference of roughly $5.2 billion in a single year.
​
Chart 1: Alabama Budget Comparison

The chart above shows what happened. For several years, spending and the Responsible Budget benchmark moved relatively close together. Then spending accelerated. By 2025, actual spending had pulled dramatically away from what population growth and inflation would have justified.

This isn’t merely a budget issue.

It’s a taxpayer issue.

The $18,000 Cost to Families

Over the last decade, Alabama accumulated nearly $24 billion in excess state-funds spending compared with a Responsible Budget.

For a family of four, that’s more than $18,000.

That’s not a line item on a spreadsheet.

That’s money that could have strengthened retirement savings, paid off debt, or helped build an emergency fund.

Of course, not every dollar above the benchmark was necessarily wasted. Alabama benefited from strong revenue collections, federal pandemic assistance, and economic growth during much of this period.

The more important question is whether temporary revenue gains justified permanently expanding government spending.
That’s where discipline matters.

How the Gap Developed

The next chart helps explain why Alabama drifted so far from a sustainable spending path.
​
Chart 2: Average Annual Budget Growth

Takeaway: State-funds spending grew 5.5 percent annually while population growth plus inflation averaged only 3.0 percent.
​
At first glance, a difference of 2.5 percentage points may not seem significant.

But compounding changes everything.

Just as small differences in investment returns can create large differences in wealth over time, small differences in spending growth create dramatically larger government budgets over time.

That’s exactly what happened in Alabama.

Why Budget Structure Matters

These spending trends are occurring within a budgeting system that the Alabama Policy Institute has long argued needs reform.

API notes that more than 90 percent of Alabama revenues are earmarked for specific purposes, limiting lawmakers’ flexibility and making it harder to prioritize spending effectively.

Those structural challenges make spending restraint even more important.

The solution isn’t austerity.

The solution is discipline.

A Better Path Forward

A Responsible Budget does not freeze spending or require immediate cuts.

It allows government to grow while ensuring that growth remains aligned with taxpayers’ ability to support it.

Chart 3: FY2027 Responsible Budget Limits

Even under a Responsible Budget framework, Alabama could continue increasing spending next year.

Government would still grow.

It simply would not grow faster than the people funding it.

Three Key Takeaways for Policymakers

Spending limits matter. Population growth plus inflation provides a practical benchmark for sustainable government growth.

Alabama exceeded that benchmark. The result was billions of dollars in excess spending and a growing burden on taxpayers.

Fiscal discipline creates opportunity. Spending restraint is the foundation for lasting tax relief, stronger economic growth, and greater prosperity.

Closing Thoughts

When spending consistently exceeds population growth plus inflation, government expands faster than the taxpayers funding it. Over time, that means higher tax burdens, fewer opportunities for tax relief, and less room for the private sector to create jobs and prosperity.

Alabama is the first stop in this series. Some states will provide examples of fiscal discipline. Others will reveal even larger spending problems. But each state can be evaluated using the same standard.

If we’re serious about lower taxes, greater affordability, and stronger economic growth, the conversation must start with spending restraint.

That’s exactly why the Sustainable Budget Project matters.

What Do You Think?

Should states limit spending growth to population growth plus inflation?

Leave a comment below and join the conversation.

If you found this analysis valuable, please share it, restack it, and subscribe for future installments in this 50-state series.

And if you’d like to support my work researching, writing, speaking, podcasting, and advancing policies that let people prosper, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
​
Together, we can help build a future where government lives within its means and families keep more of theirs.

Originally published on Substack. 

Politicians love to tell taxpayers the same story after elections: government needs more money, taxes have to go up, and families just need to pay more.

But states across the country are proving that story wrong.

The latest income tax map by Americans for Tax Reform shows a major policy shift happening in real time. More states are moving away from progressive income taxes and toward flatter, lower, and eventually zero income taxes. That matters because income taxes do two harmful things: they punish work, saving, investment, entrepreneurship, and success, and they give politicians permanent access to your paycheck.

That is the wrong relationship between citizens and government.

Government should have to justify what it spends. Taxpayers should not have to justify keeping what they earn.

How to Read the Map
​
The ATR map below is useful because it shows more than today’s tax rates. It shows the direction states are moving.

Green states have zero income taxes. Yellow states have flat income taxes. Gray states still have graduated income taxes, where rates rise as people earn more. Striped states have passed legislation to eliminate income taxes over time, while other markings show states that have passed legislation to move to a flat income tax or where state leaders have endorsed income tax phaseouts.
​
That distinction matters.

A state’s current tax rate tells you where it is today. But triggers, phaseouts, and flat-tax reforms tell you where the state is trying to go. And increasingly, the reform direction is clear: lower, flatter, simpler, and eventually zero!

The ATR map notes that states including South Carolina, North Carolina, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Georgia, Ohio, Kansas, Idaho, Utah, and Montana have recently cut rates, moved toward flatter structures, or adopted triggers that keep pressure on future tax relief. And state leaders in multiple states have endorsed income tax elimination, showing that this is no longer a fringe idea. It is becoming a serious governing strategy.

Income Taxes Punish Prosperity

Income taxes are among the most destructive taxes because they fall directly on people’s productive activity.

Work more, and government takes more.

Earn more, and government takes more.

Save more, invest more, build more, and take more risks, and government takes more.

That is bad economics and bad moral reasoning.

A state should want more work, more entrepreneurship, more investment, and more upward mobility. Yet income taxes penalize all of those things. They tell families, workers, and employers that success is a revenue source for politicians.

That is why the long-run goal should be clear: no income tax!

Flat taxes are better than progressive taxes because they are simpler and less punitive at the margin. Lower rates are better than higher rates because they reduce the penalty on work and investment. But the North Star should be zero.

The Momentum Is Real

The momentum is not happening in just one state.

Mississippi passed legislation to reduce its individual income tax to 3 percent by 2030 and then continue toward zero if fiscal conditions are met. Oklahoma reduced its rate and created a path toward further reductions. Indiana cut its flat tax and created future trigger-based reductions. Kentucky has been moving down through a flat-tax trigger model. Georgia has been reducing its flat rate. Ohio moved toward a flatter, lower structure. South Carolina moved toward a lower-rate system with potential future reductions.

This is the tax competition model working.

States are watching each other. Lawmakers are learning from each other. Taxpayers are asking why their own states cannot do the same.

And they should.

But Tax Cuts Alone Are Not Enough

Here is the part too many tax-cut conversations miss: most states are still spending too much.

That is where the ATR Sustainable Budget Project is essential. ATR updated its data through FY 2025 and compares state spending to a simple benchmark: population growth plus inflation. That benchmark reflects the average taxpayer’s ability to pay for government. If spending grows faster than population growth plus inflation, government is growing faster than taxpayers can reasonably afford.

And the results are sobering.

From 2016 to 2025, aggregate state spending, excluding federal transfers, rose 65.8 percent, while population growth plus inflation rose only 32.4 percent.

That is the bigger issue.

The problem is not that taxpayers are undertaxed. The problem is that government overspends.

Only a Few States Show Real Restraint

ATR’s Sustainable Budget Project found that only eight states kept their budgets below population growth plus inflation in at least one key category. Just Colorado, North Dakota, and Texas kept both state funds and all funds spending growth below the benchmark over the decade. Five more states, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, and Oklahoma, kept state funds growth below the benchmark but not all funds.

That means the vast majority of states, including many states moving in the right direction on tax reform, still have a spending problem.

This is why income tax elimination must be paired with spending restraint.

Otherwise, lawmakers will simply cut one tax, keep spending too much, and later raise another tax. That is not tax reform. That is tax shifting.

Economic Freedom Wins

The income tax movement also connects to a bigger story: economic freedom.
​
The Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of North America 2025 report measures the degree to which governments allow people to make their own economic choices.

It finds that from 2014 to 2023, population in the freest U.S. states grew nearly 18 times faster and statewide personal income grew nine times faster than in the least-free states.
​
That is not random.

People chase opportunity. Workers chase better job markets. Families chase affordability. Entrepreneurs chase places where success is rewarded instead of punished.

States with lower taxes, restrained spending, and lighter regulatory burdens tend to create better environments for people to prosper.

The Opposition Knows This

The political class understands what is at stake.

Government unions, left-wing activists, and defenders of big government know that if more states eliminate income taxes successfully, taxpayers everywhere will ask the obvious question:

Why are we paying so much?

That is why these reforms face so much resistance.

The fight is not really about one rate or one bracket. It is about who controls the future: taxpayers or government.

The political class prefers permanent revenue. Taxpayers deserve permanent relief.

The North Star

The best path is straightforward.

First, cap spending growth to less than population growth plus inflation. Second, use excess revenue (surpluses) to buy down income tax rates. Third, broaden the tax base by eliminating carveouts instead of raising rates. Fourth, use triggers that continue reducing income taxes until they are gone. Fifth, protect taxpayers from backdoor tax hikes through property taxes, fees, and hidden regulatory costs.

That is how states can move from progressive taxes to flat taxes, from flat taxes to lower rates, and from lower rates to zero.
Income tax elimination is not reckless when spending is restrained. It is reckless to keep spending too much and demand that taxpayers pay more forever.

Three Takeaways for Policymakers

1. Income taxes punish prosperity.

They penalize work, saving, investment, entrepreneurship, and success. States that want more opportunity should move toward flatter, lower, and ultimately zero income taxes.

2. Spending restraint must come first.

The ATR Sustainable Budget Project shows most states are spending faster than population growth plus inflation. Tax cuts will last only if lawmakers control spending.

3. Economic freedom is the competitive advantage.

The Fraser Institute shows freer states grow faster. Lower taxes, restrained spending, and lighter regulatory burdens attract people, income, jobs, and investment.

The Bottom Line

The race to zero income taxes is one of the most important state policy movements in America.

It says government should not have first claim on your paycheck. It says work should be rewarded, not punished. It says states should compete to attract families, entrepreneurs, and investment. And it says taxpayers are tired of being told government must always grow while their own budgets get tighter.

But tax reform without spending restraint is a mirage.

The states that win will be the ones that cut taxes, restrain spending, and expand economic freedom together.

That is how states let people prosper.

Thank you for reading and for sharing my work. If this added value to your week, please pass it along to a policymaker, staffer, journalist, or friend who should read it. Through Ginn Economic Consulting, I am glad to help policymakers, organizations, and leaders think through tax reform, spending restraint, competitiveness, and broader pro-growth policy that lets people prosper.