Originally published to X. 

Parents across the country are demanding more choices in how their children are educated, and for good reason.

Despite record spending of nearly $900 billion annually on K-12 education, or more than $17,000 per student, student outcomes continue to decline. The latest National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores show significant drops in math and reading proficiency, exposing the failure of the current system to deliver quality education.

While more than 30 states have some form of school choice, The 2025 EdChoice Friedman Index notes that only four states—Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, and West Virginia—offer truly universal Education Savings Accounts (ESAs).

Image Source: EdChoice

The largest red state, Texas, has no private school choice programs. With 6.3 million school-age children, including 5.5 million in government schools and nearly 1 million in private, home, micro, or other types of schooling, Texas has more students than the total populations of all but 17 states.

Yet, despite its size, Texas lags in delivering true universal school choice.

Texas lawmakers have introduced House Bill 3 (HB 3) and Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), claiming universal eligibility. However, neither bill provides universal funding or usage, meaning they fall short of true school choices like Arizona, Florida, Arkansas, and West Virginia. If Texas truly wants to lead, HB 3 is the stronger bill, but it should be improved to ensure full funding and total flexibility for families. Otherwise, millions of students will remain trapped in a failing system.

Texas lawmakers are also pushing bad policies like HB 2, SB 26, and other bills that would funnel at least $8 billion more into government schools while allocating only $1 billion to ESAs. This would cover at most 1.5% of students, serving just 100,000 children—a small fraction considering Texas has more than 6 million students and a population of 30 million, the second-largest in the country.

Texas doesn’t need more spending—if that were the answer, we’d already have the best education system in the world. What Texas needs is competition.

Parents shouldn’t have to wait for slow legislative action while their children’s futures are at stake. If Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, and West Virginia can provide truly universal ESAs, there is no excuse for other states to lag behind.
​
It’s time for a bold vision for education that prioritizes students over bureaucracy. The demand is clear, the data are conclusive, and the path forward is undeniable. Universal ESAs must be the standard in every state.

Originally posted with Logan Kolas at The Center Square.

​Some Texas lawmakers insist that a small business carveout in HB 1709, called the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA), will shield fledgling businesses from its Euro-style micromanagement of artificial intelligence.

They are mistaken.

TRAIGA is a sweeping attempt to regulate AI under the pretext of preventing algorithmic bias. In reality, it imposes excessive compliance burdens that stifle innovation, particularly among small businesses. It forces AI developers, distributors, and deployers to jump through bureaucratic hoops of paperwork, audits, and impact assessments.

The bill’s so-called small business exemption – for firms earning less than $7.5 million annually – ignores how AI works in the real economy. Most small businesses rely on AI tools developed by larger firms – and even use those tools to compete against them. Since those companies must comply with TRAIGA’s mandates, they will pass compliance costs down the supply chain, increasing expenses for everyone and depriving small businesses of a tool they can use to stay competitive against larger businesses.

A recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce report found that a quarter of small businesses in America already use AI to stay competitive. Whether it’s automated resume screening for construction, bid writing for utilities, AI-driven medical scheduling, or even simple Excel functions, TRAIGA could place everyday AI applications under costly regulatory scrutiny.

TRAIGA’s compliance burdens will discourage AI adoption among smaller firms, widening the gap between startups and entrenched players. Some lawmakers may justify this by arguing that it only targets “Big Tech,” but the reality is different: When large AI firms are overregulated, small businesses that rely on them suffer.

Texas is at the center of the AI revolution. Major AI infrastructure investments from firms like OpenAI, Oracle, and Microsoft bring advanced computational tools to startups and entrepreneurs. The Stargate initiative, backed by SoftBank and OpenAI, is expected to drive AI infrastructure development nationwide – starting in Abilene, Texas.

TRAIGA threatens to undermine this momentum. If passed, the bill will limit access to companies’ AI tools, increase costs to cover compliance, or abandon Texas altogether. Worse, the bill’s vague and subjective language will create a chilling effect, causing businesses to avoid investing in AI out of fear of regulatory entanglement.

California attempted a similar approach, and it backfired. The state’s AI bill was so convoluted and anti-innovation that even some of the most AI-hostile legislators had to backtrack. TRAIGA follows that same failed progressive model by punishing businesses not for actual harm but for hypothetical future harm – a dangerous “guilty until proven innocent” framework.

Fortunately, there is a better path forward. Instead of suffocating Texas businesses with excessive regulation, the Texas AI Freedom Act (TAIFA) will ensure that AI innovation thrives.

Filed by Rep. Brian Harrison, TAIFA takes the opposite approach of TRAIGA – it removes bureaucratic roadblocks and unleashes the power of the free market.

Unlike TRAIGA, which burdens small businesses, TAIFA cuts red tape and fosters AI development by creating a temporary AI Advisory Council to identify and remove unnecessary regulations. It also focuses AI policy on performance and American ingenuity by establishing regulatory laboratories where businesses can test AI innovations in a free-market setting. Notably, the TAIFA alternative ensures the government does not use AI expansion as an excuse to grow its power.

The U.S. is in the middle of an AI revolution, and Texas should lead it. TRAIGA would cripple AI growth in Texas, pushing investment to states with less burdensome policies. Worse, it could open the AI battlefield for China and other adversaries to dominate.

Texas should not follow California’s failed example of overregulation. Instead, it must embrace policies that encourage innovation, competition, and entrepreneurship. The Texas AI Freedom Act does precisely that.

TRAIGA shackles AI innovation. TAIFA unleashes it. Texas lawmakers must choose wisely.

Originally posted to the Pelican Institute.

Louisiana has long struggled with budget challenges, but Gov. Jeff Landry’s administration is taking a significant step toward addressing them. The newly established Fiscal Responsibility Program (FRP), similar in its goals to those by the federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), aims to uncover and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in state spending. With President Donald Trump and Elon Musk at the federal level and other states proposing similar oversight initiatives, Louisiana can lead in making the government more accountable to taxpayers.

The DOGE is designed to correct excessive spending by identifying inefficiencies and ensuring every taxpayer dollar is used effectively. If implemented correctly, this initiative could help Louisiana rein in spending and avoid the cycle of higher spending and higher taxes that have plagued the state, burdening citizens and making the state less economically competitive.

The state’s legislative auditor has long pointed to inefficiencies and opportunities to streamline and improve outcomes. For instance, state audits have previously found millions wasted on inefficient Medicaid payments, misallocated education funds, and bloated administrative costs in various agencies. In 2022 alone, Louisiana’s Legislative Auditor flagged over $100 million in improper Medicaid payments, highlighting the urgent need for stronger oversight. 

Governor Landry recently announced a partnership with the state legislative auditor to leverage financial and performance audit reports and make sure they don’t just sit on the shelf but get put to good use.

The program mirrors efforts in other states that have seen success with fiscal watchdogs. Florida’s Office of Policy and Budget regularly identifies savings opportunities, and Texas has implemented efficiency audits that have helped curb unnecessary spending in TANF. Trump’s proposal for a federal-level DOGE underscores a growing recognition that government waste isn’t just a state issue but a national one, costing taxpayers billions annually.

Louisiana’s long-term economic success depends on responsible budgeting. While this new initiative is a much-needed and great start, limiting overall government spending growth to a maximum rate of population growth plus inflation would prevent unnecessary expansions and help keep the state’s finances sustainable. The DOGE’s efforts should focus on identifying wasteful programs and restructuring government operations to be more efficient. Louisiana’s FRP should also review spending to non-governmental organizations and local governments. This spending is a growing concern and could help shed light on the uses of taxpayer money while also ensuring that the state’s priorities are being met.

Transparency and involving the public will be critical. By receiving input from citizens and publicizing the DOGE’s findings, taxpayers can hold lawmakers accountable for acting on them. Too often, politically popular programs avoid scrutiny, and government inefficiencies are identified but not addressed, allowing waste to continue unchecked. If Louisiana follows through, it can serve as a model for other states and even the federal government.

Gov. Landry’s Fiscal Responsibility Program represents an opportunity to make a lasting impact. If Louisiana successfully reduces waste and passes responsible budgets, it will be well-positioned for stronger economic growth. Taxpayers should demand no less. 
​
You can get involved by posting your cost-cutting ideas at LA DOGE. 

Originally posted to X. 

Today, the Texas House Committee on Public Education convenes to deliberate on House Bill 3 (HB 3), a pivotal piece of legislation to reform our state's education system by introducing the first school choice program with Education Savings Accounts (ESAs).

This initiative seeks to empower parents with the autonomy to choose the best educational setting for their children, whether public, private, charter, homeschooling, or another. While HB 3 represents a commendable step toward educational freedom, it falls short of delivering the comprehensive reform Texans urgently need.

Texas allocates nearly $95 billion annually to K-12 education. Since 2013, spending per student of more than $15,000 has increased 48%, outpacing the 35% inflation rate over the same period. Despite this substantial taxpayer spending, student outcomes have declined, with eighth-grade math proficiency dropping by 40%.

This paradox of increased funding and deteriorating performance underscores a fundamental flaw in our education system: a bureaucratic monopoly prioritizing administrative expansion over classroom excellence.
The existing funding model is riddled with inefficiencies. Instead of directing resources to students, the system continues funneling money into a growing bureaucracy, with higher salaries and expanded administrative roles instead of improved instruction. More money has never been the solution, yet lawmakers continue doubling down on the same broken model.

The reality is clear: Texas students suffer under an education system that fails to deliver quality outcomes despite record spending.

HB 3 attempts to address this by introducing ESAs, giving families more choices in spending their education dollars. However, the current proposal is too limited, covering only about 1.5% of Texas' 6.3 million students.

While the bill includes an escalator to expand eligibility to those on a waitlist, it depends on future legislatures for funding—an uncertain and flawed approach. Additionally, HB 3 imposes unnecessary restrictions on accredited institutions and education-related purchases, making the program more bureaucratic than necessary.
​
Meanwhile, HB 2—the other half of the so-called “Texas Two-Step” package—proposes an additional $8 billion for government schools. Instead of reforming the broken system, this approach reinforces the monopoly, raising the basic allotment per student and further entrenching a model that has consistently failed to improve student outcomes.

Texas must go beyond incremental reforms and adopt a universal ESA system that allows every student access to education funding that follows them rather than being trapped in a failing system. A fully funded ESA program would allocate $12,000 per student, allowing families to use taxpayer funds for approved educational expenses such as tuition, homeschooling, tutoring, and career training.

Shifting from a district-based to a student-based model would empower families and reduce system inefficiencies. This would save taxpayers nearly $20 billion annually and cut school district maintenance and operations property taxes by two-thirds.

Expanding school choice is not just about students—it also benefits teachers.

The government school system operates as a monopsony, as it is the dominant employer of teaching services. This restricts teachers' bargaining power and limits salary growth. A competitive education market would increase teacher pay, with estimates suggesting a potential salary increase of at least $14,000. High-quality teachers could see as much as $28,000 in additional income.

Texas can lead the nation in education reform by passing HB 3 with significant improvements and rejecting HB 2’s outdated approach of throwing more money into the broken system. Lawmakers should ensure that government schools receive no more than what current law requires and that parents have real choices in how their children are educated.

The future of Texas education depends on bold action. Rather than reinforcing a bloated bureaucracy, the state should transition to a funding model that prioritizes students rather than systems. While HB 3 is a step in the right direction, it must be expanded to ensure that every child in Texas has the opportunity to thrive.

Read my testimony with more information and sources: 
https://x.com/VanceGinn/status/1899457920133108024

Originally posted on X.

President Donald Trump’s address to Congress portrayed a vision of “America is back!” This includes faster economic growth centered on tax cuts, deregulation, and less government spending.

While these proposals are critical for ensuring America’s competitiveness, his speech failed to address two major economic threats that will impact every American: the mounting national debt and the costs of tariffs. These would be drags on economic growth, real wages, and prosperity.

While Trump’s instincts to cut government overreach are necessary, true economic prosperity requires confronting the nation’s spending crisis and embracing free trade.

Trump’s call for cutting government spending is necessary, especially considering that the national debt has surpassed $36 trillion and the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 120%. 

Over the past year, the debt has grown by $2 trillion, and annual interest payments are now about $1 trillion. Interest payments now consume a larger share of the federal budget than spending on national defense. This burden will only grow as interest rates rise and more debt is added, crowding out spending on key services like defense, the justice system, etc.

If Washington continues reckless spending, the cost will fall even harder on American families through higher taxes, faster inflation, and reduced access to public services.

Trump’s speech rightly criticized wasteful spending but failed to address the biggest drivers of the nation’s budget crisis: Social Security and Medicare. These two programs account for over half of all federal spending and more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Without reform, Social Security’s trust fund will be depleted by 2034, triggering automatic 21% benefit cuts. For millions of retirees who rely on Social Security to make ends meet, these cuts would significantly reduce their standard of living. Similarly, Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is expected to run out by 2036, which would create a major shortfall in funding for seniors' health insurance.

Reform is urgent. Since their inception, Social Security and Medicare’s problems have been like a Ponzi scheme as debt and workers pay for retirees’ payments. We can no longer wait to address these welfare programs, as the longer we wait, the more drastic the necessary changes will be on retirees and workers.

Trump could have led on entitlement reform by proposing gradual fixes—raising the retirement age, means-testing benefits for wealthier retirees, or creating options for private savings accounts, especially for younger workers. Without these reforms, the alternative is either large tax hikes or draconian benefit cuts, neither of which would be palatable to voters.

In his speech and previous comments, Trump missed an extraordinary opportunity to address these challenges, leaving future generations to bear the burden of a growing fiscal crisis.

On the positive side, Trump’s pledge to make permanent improvements to the 2017 Trump tax cuts is an essential policy for economic growth. Lowering taxes puts more money in the hands of individuals and businesses, spurring investment and job creation.

Before the pandemic, the 2017 tax cuts helped drive record-low unemployment and rising wages. However, tax cuts alone are not enough if government spending remains unchecked. While tax relief helps boost growth, the rising debt and unfunded liabilities will eventually overwhelm these gains if the government doesn’t control its spending.

Running trillion-dollar deficits while cutting taxes is a short-term solution that leads to long-term consequences. If Trump is serious about maintaining tax cuts, he must pair them with meaningful spending reductions to keep debt levels manageable.

The most concerning aspect of Trump’s speech was his renewed push for tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada.
Trump argued that tariffs would protect American jobs and reduce the trade deficit, but history shows that tariffs are taxes on American consumers. Past tariffs drove up prices on electronics, household goods, and other essentials, hitting families and small businesses hardest.

In addition to increasing costs, tariffs provoke retaliation from different countries, threatening American exports. If these tariffs continue, American farmers and manufacturers, already struggling to access foreign markets, will face even steeper barriers to trade and likely bailouts like last time.

The U.S. should reduce corporate taxes, eliminate regulatory barriers, and foster global competitiveness rather than rely on mercantilist protectionism.

Free trade, not government-imposed tariffs based on a flawed mercantilist view, strengthens the economy by giving businesses access to cheaper materials and larger markets. By lowering the cost of doing business, Trump could help create more jobs and keep prices lower for consumers. Tariffs do the opposite: They disrupt supply chains and drive up costs for Americans.

Trump’s economic vision contains many strong elements, mainly his focus on cutting wasteful spending, improving tax cuts, and ensuring deregulation. These policies would allow businesses to expand, wages to rise, and the economy to grow.

However, the failure to address “entitlement” reform and the continued reliance on tariffs undermine the long-term sustainability of his economic plan. If Trump wants to restore America’s economic strength, he must confront the country’s fiscal challenges by addressing Social Security and Medicare reform, reducing the national debt, and shifting away from protectionist trade policies.

Ultimately, the path to long-term prosperity is clear: cut spending, shrink government, and champion free markets. If Trump remains committed to these principles, his policies could fuel another wave of prosperity. But if the U.S. continues with rising debt, higher tariffs, and an ever-expanding government, the risks to economic freedom and growth will be severe.
​
Now is the time for fiscal discipline. By reining in government and unleashing the private sector, we can restore and secure American prosperity for generations. In short, Trump can let people prosper!