Originally published at Iowans for Tax Relief.

Dueling Immigration Policy Articles
​
Immigration has become one of the defining debates in American policy circles. While most agree that America needs secure borders and the rule of law, they often disagree about the broader purpose of immigration policy and the role immigration should play in the nation’s future.

After you’ve read Immigration: A Need for Markets, Not More Mandates, be sure to read Immigration: A Need for Greater Limits, where John Hendrickson explains why a more restrictive approach is necessary to preserve America’s culture, sovereignty, and long-term national interests.

​Immigration is one of those issues where Washington seems determined to make everyone angry while solving almost nothing.

Many Americans have real concerns. They worry about too many people coming too quickly, wages being pressured, schools and hospitals being strained, housing becoming less affordable, and cultural trust weakening in communities that already feel stretched.

Those concerns should not be dismissed. A serious country, like a constitutional republic, must have borders, law, order, and accountability. But we should also remember something too often lost in today’s debate: immigration has been one of America’s greatest sources of strength.

Immigrants helped build this country. They worked farms, built railroads, started businesses, filled churches, served in uniform, created inventions, raised families, and brought new energy to communities that needed it. America would not be America without people who came here seeking freedom, opportunity, faith, work, and a better life for their children.

And their lives improved too. That is the beauty of America at its best. People come here with little, work hard, save, build, and rise. Their children often do even better. That is not a problem to fear. That is a blessing to protect.

The problem is not that people want to come to America. The problem is that government has made the process chaotic, expensive, politicized, and unfair.

Washington built a system that is slow for legal applicants, disorderly at the border, costly for taxpayers, confusing for employers, and divisive for citizens. Then the same political class tells us the answer is more mandates, more arbitrary caps, more bureaucracy, and more executive orders.

That is not reform. That is doubling down on failure. Americans should reject the false choice between chaos and closed doors. The better path is order and opportunity through a market-based immigration system.

This matters here because Iowa needs workers. Agriculture, food processing, construction, manufacturing, health care, and small businesses all depend on reliable labor. That does not mean immigration should be unmanaged. It means the system should honestly connect real workforce demand with legal, accountable pathways.

Milton Friedman saw the central tension clearly when he warned that “you cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.” Too many people use that line to attack immigration. But Friedman’s deeper point was about incentives. If the government offers open-ended benefits detached from work and responsibility, immigration becomes politically harder to sustain. The welfare state creates conflict between taxpayers and newcomers.

So fix the welfare state. Protect taxpayers. Restore work requirements. Limit benefits to those who have earned eligibility. Make immigration tied to work, sponsorship, responsibility, and contribution.

Immigrants are people. They are not political props, automatic threats, or future dependents by nature. Many come to work, build, save, worship, start businesses, raise families, and pursue opportunity. That is deeply American. A serious immigration system should welcome contribution while rejecting disorder.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker offered a provocative idea years ago: charge for the right to immigrate instead of relying mostly on political quotas and bureaucratic rationing. Richard Vedder and others have similarly argued for auction-based immigration permits. The idea is simple. If access to the American labor market is valuable, use prices, sponsorship, and competition to allocate that access more honestly.

That does not mean open borders. It does not mean ignoring national security. It does not mean taxpayers should subsidize everyone who wants to come. It means replacing today’s political rationing with clear rules, background checks, fees, employer sponsorship, private sponsorship, and accountability.

If a business needs workers, let it prove that need by sponsoring workers or bidding for permits. If families want to reunite, let them participate under clear rules. If churches or charities want to sponsor immigrants or refugees, let them put real resources behind that commitment. If immigrants value the chance to live and work here, let them pay a transparent fee over time.

That would be more honest than a system where smugglers, lobbyists, bureaucrats, and politicians decide who gets in.

It would also help taxpayers. Permit fees or auction revenues could help offset costs in communities experiencing large inflows, though I would prefer to reduce the deficit instead. Sponsorship could create responsibility instead of leaving local taxpayers to absorb every consequence. Legal pathways would reduce pressure at the border and help employers meet real needs without rewarding lawlessness.

Markets are not perfect, but they are more humane than chaos. Prices communicate scarcity. Sponsorship creates accountability. Competition reveals demand. Clear rules build trust. Voluntary exchange respects human dignity better than political theater.

The current system is often cruel precisely because it is so political. People wait years. Families remain stuck in backlogs. Employers cannot fill jobs legally. Border communities face disorder. Taxpayers fund the consequences. Politicians campaign on the crisis instead of fixing it.

Americans should not accept that.

The classical liberal answer is simple: secure the border, enforce the law, protect taxpayers, reform welfare, and expand legal pathways tied to work and responsibility. Government should set and enforce clear rules. It should not centrally plan labor markets through arbitrary caps, political favoritism, and endless bureaucracy.

Immigration should not be run by fear. It should not be run by slogans. And it should not be run by Washington politicians pretending they know Iowa’s workforce needs better than Iowa employers, families, churches, and communities.

What would America be without immigrants? Less dynamic, less entrepreneurial, less innovative, and less true to its own story.

The right answer is not to close the door. The right answer is to restore order, protect taxpayers, and open better legal paths for people who want to contribute.

Treat immigrants as people. Protect taxpayers. Restore the rule of law. Let markets work..That is how America can be both orderly and welcoming. That is how we reduce conflict, strengthen communities, improve lives, and let people prosper.

Originally published on Substack. 

​Texas has become the latest state to hit pause on data centers.

Gov. Greg Abbott’s new directive⁠ requires the PUC and ERCOT to audit every data center advancing through the grid-connection process before additional projects move forward.

Developers must disclose expected electricity and water use, public incentives, ownership, plans for producing their own power, cooling technology, and efforts to limit noise, traffic, light, and other local effects. Projects that do not comply can be denied access to the grid.

These are reasonable questions. Markets work best with reliable information. But according to ERCOT, the order has effectively paused all pending data-center projects⁠, with no clear timetable for completion.

That uncertainty has costs.

Texans Want Benefits, Not Bans

A new statewide poll⁠ found that only 8% of voters call data centers a top voting issue, while opinions move substantially when people receive more information. Abbott’s proposed guardrails received 82% support, including 94% among Republicans, 81% among independents, and 68% among Democrats.

But voters were not demanding prohibition. Support for nearby projects rose from 46%-45% to 55%-34% when respondents learned about jobs, school revenue, infrastructure improvements, and possible bill relief.
Texans want growth they can understand and see benefiting their communities. That is fair. It is not a mandate for central planning.

The Cloud Will Keep Growing

Data centers are the physical infrastructure behind the cloud⁠. Their servers process and store the information behind GPS, banking, telehealth, logistics, streaming, business software, artificial intelligence, and nearly every digital service Texans use.

Stopping construction does not stop that activity. Texans will keep sharing files, saving photos, navigating roads, streaming shows, and using AI. The servers will simply be built elsewhere.
​
New York has already imposed the nation’s first statewide moratorium on new hyperscale data centers⁠. Texas Senate Democrats now want an immediate Texas moratorium⁠.

Texas should not copy New York. Whether investment is stopped by an explicit ban or an open-ended political approval process, the result can be similar: broken deals, lost jobs, delayed generation, and projects redirected to other states or countries.

Data Centers Are the Convenient Scapegoat

Electric bills and water concerns are real, but data centers did not create every affordability problem.

A recent electricity-rate analysis⁠ found no quantitative evidence that data centers have historically been subsidized by other customers. Rates reflect inflation, fuel volatility, grid investments, plant retirements, market design, and government permitting and interconnection barriers.

Likewise, data centers currently account for less than 1% of Texas water use⁠. Usage varies widely by cooling system, including closed-loop designs that reuse water.

The answer is more supply, not less progress.

Let Texas Build

Texas needs faster permitting, more generation, more transmission, better water pricing, more reuse, stronger property rights, and more private infrastructure. Prices and voluntary contracts already force businesses to weigh land, power, water, labor, and risk better than politicians can.

As I have argued, Texas should choose innovation over intervention⁠, fix government utility failures rather than blame data centers⁠, and compete for this investment instead of regulating it away⁠.

Texas became America’s economic leader by building, not banning what politicians did not understand.
​
Let New York manage decline. Texas should keep building.

Originally published at National Review. 

Washington's 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act went into law on July 11 without President Trump’s signature. The benefits of that bill are questionable, and Trump hoped to incentivize Congress to also pass the SAVE America Act, which didn’t happen. This federal housing bill gives governors and state lawmakers an opportunity to think before copying one of Congress’s worst ideas.

The newly passed bill gets some things right. It would ease some federal environmental reviews, improve manufactured-housing rules, and encourage local governments to remove other barriers that discourage building housing in Opportunity Zones and other areas. Those steps could help because America needs more homes, and we need them soon.

But Congress also targeted large institutional investors that own at least 350 single-family homes. That sounds simple. It is bad economics.

Milton Friedman often reminded people to look beyond good intentions and ask what incentives a policy creates. Restricting one group of buyers does not build a single new home. It can mean less investment, fewer rentals, slower repairs, more uncertainty, and higher prices than we would otherwise have.

Housing affordability mostly comes down to supply. When more people want homes than the market can provide, prices rise. Politicians can blame Wall Street, landlords, out-of-state buyers, or anyone else — but the real issue is still scarcity.

Government helped create that scarcity. Zoning rules limit where homes can be built. Minimum lot sizes force families to buy more land than they need. Parking mandates add costs. Permitting delays slow construction and raise financing costs. Impact fees increase home prices. Property taxes push up ownership and rental costs every year.

Blaming investors after blocking supply is like blaming umbrellas for rain. The data do not support the panic. In particular, institutional investors buy a very small share of housing. 

A recent report found that, “Institutions, defined by the proposed legislation as entities with 350+ homes in a portfolio, own ~0.7 percent of the 92 million US single-family homes and institutional investors of this size have been scaling back acquisitions — accounting for just 1 percent of all U.S. home purchases, down from a 4 percent peak in 2022.”

⁠Realtor.com likewise found institutional investors accounted for about 1 percent of national single-family home sales over the past decade, and their purchases have fallen since the 2021 peak. Most investor activity comes from smaller landlords. ⁠Realtor.com reported that investors bought 11.3 percent of homes in 2025, but mom-and-pop investors led the activity. Separately, the ⁠Mercatus Center at George Mason University found that large institutional owners have never accounted for more than 2 percent to 5 percent of purchases in any quarter.

​What’s more, even forcing every institutionally owned single-family rental into owner-occupancy would barely change the market. ⁠Brookings estimates available owner-occupied homes would rise only about 1 percent to 2 percent. That is not an affordability plan; it is a talking point.

Bad landlords exist. So do bad tenants, homeowners, builders, lenders, and politicians. Handle real misconduct with contracts, fraud laws, property standards, and local accountability. Broad ownership restrictions punish investment and reduce options.

Single-family rentals serve real families. Some households want a yard, more space, and neighborhood stability without buying right away. Others cannot qualify for a mortgage or want flexibility. Build-to-rent communities and professionally managed rentals help meet those needs.

A simple question cuts through politics: Compared with what?

If an investor cannot buy and repair a home, who fixes it? If a build-to-rent project is discouraged, where do those families live? If capital leaves because lawmakers threaten ownership limits, how does that create more homes? It does not.

Lawmakers should move the other way: Avoid special taxes on institutional owners, reject purchase caps, protect build-to-rent communities, and skip restrictive reporting rules. Real and effective reforms include legalizing more housing, shortening permitting timelines, limiting excessive fees, restraining government spending, and limiting property taxes before increasing budgets become a response to rising housing costs. States should also protect property rights when Washington tells people whom they may buy from, sell to, or rent from. Model legislation, legal challenges, and market-access protections would do better than anti-investor grandstanding.

None of this is about defending Wall Street. The issue is supply, competition, and choice. Prices send signals. High housing prices tell us homes are too scarce. Punishing buyers will not fix that.

Congress already made the investor mistake. Governors and state legislators should not make it worse. Housing needs more homes, not more scapegoats.

Originally published on Washington Examiner.

​A number of states say they’re trying to fix healthcare costs by telling pharmacy benefit managers how they can operate. Instead of focusing on our broken and convoluted system, these politicians claim that PBMs making business operations simpler and more streamlined is somehow the problem. 

The business model is called vertical integration. It happens across every industry to benefit consumers under many circumstances and simply means a business operates at multiple stages of production or delivery. A grocery store may own farms, trucks, and stores. A technology company may make hardware, software, and services. A retailer may run warehouses, delivery networks, and online marketplaces. 

No system is perfect. Vertical integration can create conflicts of interest but also reduce costs, improve coordination, and make life easier for consumers. The right question is not whether a company is vertically integrated. The right question is whether it is using that structure to harm consumers, block competition, or raise prices.

That distinction matters because politicians often blame private business models for problems the government helped create. We see this in housing, energy, finance, and healthcare. Government restricts supply, subsidizes demand, writes complex rules, and creates incentives that distort markets. Then, when prices rise, lawmakers blame the companies trying to navigate the maze.

Healthcare is the clearest example. America does not have a free healthcare market. It has a government-dominated, third-party payer system that separates patients from prices and doctors from many decisions. Employer-sponsored insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, federal tax preferences, and state mandates have created a system where someone else usually controls the dollars. When someone else controls the dollars, they control the terms.

That is where PBMs fit in. They manage prescription drug benefits for employers, insurers, unions, and government programs. They negotiate with drug manufacturers, build pharmacy networks, process claims, and help determine which drugs are covered. They exist because the government has made the drug market a nightmare.

Ironically, to the government critics, PBMs vertically integrated due to government policies in the so-called Affordable Care Act. Insurance companies were banned from having too much profit, so they bought pharmacies to make money in other ways.

PBMs should not get a free pass. The largest PBMs are connected to insurers and pharmacy businesses, which raises legitimate questions about steering, pricing, and access. The Federal Trade Commission has raised concerns about specialty generic drug markups and affiliated pharmacy revenue. Patients and independent pharmacists have real complaints about opaque rebates, reimbursement, and networks.

But reducing or banning vertical integration mistakes the symptom for the disease.

​Tennessee recently passed the FAIR Rx Act, which restricts companies from owning or controlling both pharmacies and certain benefit-management or insurance operations. Tennessee has already been sued by CVS and Express Scripts, with Express Scripts arguing the law would limit prescription access for tens of thousands of Tennesseans and affect care for many more.

Arkansas passed a similar law first with Act 624. A federal judge blocked it after finding serious concerns involving interstate commerce and veterans’ healthcare. Other states should pause before copying this experiment.

Anti-vertical integration bills do not lower drug list prices, speed up generic competition, reduce hospital consolidation, or restore the patient-doctor relationship. They tell private firms how to organize and hope lower costs follow. That is not market reform. It is an industrial policy delivered by the same governments that broke things in the first place.

It could also reduce access. Integrated pharmacy, mail-order, specialty, and clinic services are not just corporate boxes on a chart. Patients use them because they are often convenient and connected to coverage. Forcing those arrangements apart could mean fewer locations, fewer care options, more confusion, and longer waits, especially for patients with chronic conditions or specialty medications.

​Healthcare needs more market discipline, not more political micromanagement. Patients need clearer prices, more control over healthcare and spending, and more competition. Doctors need more room to serve patients rather than navigate third-party bureaucracy.

If policymakers want lower costs and better access, they should fix the incentives the government has distorted rather than give it more power to tell private innovators how to serve consumers.

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.

Originally published at Fraser Institute. 

​Texas ranks fourth nationally with an overall score of 8.15 in the Economic Freedom of North America report published by the Fraser Institute. The ranking, based on 2023 data, places Texas firmly among the most economically free states in the country.

But the more important signal in the data is not where Texas ranks now. It is how the state has had excessive spending and high property taxes weigh on economic freedom today and in the coming years. Texas’s economic success is visible first in the labor market.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Texas had one of the fastest job creation rates in 2023 (and thereafter). Employment growth has consistently exceeded the national average, while unemployment rates have generally remained below the U.S. rate.

When marginal tax rates on work are zero and labor markets are flexible, employers expand, and workers respond. The economic output data tell the same story.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis shows that Texas’s real GDP growth was a leader in 2023, driven by private-sector expansion. Capital flows toward jurisdictions where expected after-tax returns are higher, and policy risk is lower. Texas has benefited from that reality for decades.

The EFNA index explains why.

Texas scores well on taxation and labor-market regulation, largely because it imposes no personal income tax and maintains comparatively flexible employment rules. Those institutional features reduce distortions on work, saving and investment, raising long-run growth potential. Yet the same EFNA data also reveal why Texas’s ranking has flattened rather than improved in recent years. The binding constraint today is not necessarily taxes or labor policy. It is government spending growth at the state and local levels.

Since at least the mid-2010s, state and local spending in Texas has grown substantially faster than population growth plus inflation, meaning government now consumes a larger share of personal income than it once did.

EFNA measures spending relative to income because this ratio determines how much private activity is crowded out. When the government expands faster than the economy and taxes rise to fund it, economic freedom declines. Property taxes are the primary transmission mechanism.

Texas constitutionally bans income taxes, wealth taxes and state property taxes, but relies heavily on sales taxes to fund state spending and local property taxes to finance local budgets. Property-tax collections have risen faster than household incomes, raising effective tax rates even when statutory rates appear unchanged.

From an economic perspective, this is not neutral. Higher property taxes can raise the cost of housing and capital formation, reduce real wages over time, and slow investment, especially in high-tax metropolitan areas.

Government-sector employment growth reinforces the trend. BLS data show government employment rising faster than private employment in recent years. EFNA penalizes this pattern because it signals higher future tax burdens or debt service.

Economic theory predicts the outcome: slower productivity growth and weaker private-sector dynamism.

Directionally, Texas has held its rank while peer states have closed the gap. That is an important distinction. The EFNA report relies on 2023 data, which means recent policy changes about restraint are not yet reflected. What is reflected is the cumulative effect of spending decisions made over the past decade.

Rankings move slowly because institutions change slowly. That is a feature, not a flaw. The Fraser Institute’s findings are consistent across time and geography. States with higher economic freedom exhibit higher income levels, stronger labor-force participation, faster job creation and greater net in-migration.

Texas still benefits from those advantages. But the data now show that fiscal drift could erode the margin. The lesson is not ideological. It is arithmetic. Economic freedom helped build the Texas model. Preserving it now requires discipline.

If government spending growth continues to outpace population growth plus inflation, Texas’s comparative advantage will narrow, then disappear. Growth can mask that reality for a while. It cannot undo it.

Originally published on Substack. 

College sports are not amateur anymore. That debate is over. Athletes are getting paid through NIL. Schools are preparing to share revenue directly with players. Coaches are managing rosters like free agency. Donors are financing what increasingly looks like payroll.

The question now is not whether college sports will change. It already has. The question is whether Congress will respond by protecting athletes and consumers or by protecting the NCAA’s old business model.

Washington Can’t Fix Every Broken Play

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is right that the status quo is unsustainable. The Protect College Sports Act would create federal rules around NIL, transfers, athlete protections, state-law preemption, and antitrust protection for college sports. Some of that sounds reasonable because the current system is a mess.

But Washington should be careful. A bad market does not become better simply because Congress manages it.

The House v. NCAA settlement changed everything by allowing schools to pay athletes directly, with Division I programs able to share roughly $20.5 million annually with athletes, in addition to scholarships and benefits. That is not old-school amateurism with endorsement deals on the side. And it is a professional sports model trying to live inside a university system built for education.
​
Incentives Are Changing Fast
​
This new system changes incentives in ways no one fully understands yet.

Athletes will chase compensation. Schools will chase talent. Donors will chase wins. Conferences will chase media money. Administrators will chase revenue. Coaches will chase roster stability. Agents and collectives will chase leverage.

That is not necessarily immoral. It is economics. But it is also why Congress should not pretend it can design the right college sports market from Washington.

The Sorsby Situation Shows the Chaos

The Brendan Sorsby situation at Texas Tech shows the problem.

He transferred into my alma mater amid NIL litigation, gambling-related eligibility disputes, Big 12 concerns, NCAA involvement, and now reporting that the NCAA has opened an inquiry into Cincinnati. Earlier reports said he planned to enter the NFL Supplemental Draft, but later reporting said the 2026 supplemental draft was canceled and he is training for the 2027 NFL Draft.

That is chaos.

But chaos is not an argument for federal control. It is an argument for honest contracts, transparent rules, enforceable accountability, and a clearer separation between education and professional entertainment.
Build a Real Minor LeagueHere is the uncomfortable truth: big-time college football and basketball are becoming minor-league sports. So let them become that honestly.

Create private athletic entities separate from universities. Let them license school brands, rent stadiums, contract with athletes, negotiate media rights, and operate like the entertainment businesses they already are becoming.

Athletes could earn what the market will pay. Fans could still cheer for familiar colors. Schools could still benefit financially through licensing and facility agreements.

But universities could return to their core mission: education.

Let Universities Educate Again

That mission matters. Higher education should form citizens, advance knowledge, cultivate discipline, and prepare the bright young minds of tomorrow for work, family, leadership, and self-government.

Universities were not created to become sports holding companies with classrooms attached. Congress should not freeze today’s broken hybrid into federal law: professional money, amateur language, NCAA protection, political oversight, and university risk.

Keep Federal Policy Narrow​

A better federal role would be limited.

Clarify interstate contract rules. Protect against fraud. Require transparency where public universities and taxpayer resources are involved. Protect athlete health and scholarship commitments. Then let markets, schools, conferences, fans, and athletes sort out the rest.

College sports need reform. They need honesty more. Let athletes earn. Let private leagues develop. Let universities educate. Let fans choose.

And let Washington stop calling plays it cannot understand from the sideline.

Originally published at Kansas Policy Institute.

A new Kansas state audit shows taxpayers have paid a steep price for property tax exemptions. This is because these political choices just shift the burden of paying for government spending from selected winners to losers.

The Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit estimates that property tax exemptions tied to Industrial Revenue Bonds reduced local government tax revenue collected by $1.1 billion from 2010 through 2024. This includes $436 million from school districts, $316 million from counties, $182 million from cities, and $151 million from hospitals, townships, and other local governments.

The real cost to taxpayers is higher because Kansas does not fully track the sales tax exemptions tied to these projects, nor does it account for the opportunity cost of those exemptions. 

Three related problems stand out.

Government Cannot Pick Winners WellSupporters say tax incentives bring jobs and investment. That may happen. But the real question is whether politicians can allocate money more effectively than people in the marketplace. Usually, they cannot.

Businesses risk their own money. Government officials risk taxpayers’ money. That changes the incentives. Politicians receive praise when they announce a new project. They hold press conferences and cut ribbons. The costs are spread across taxpayers for years, often with little public attention.

As I explained in “Subsidies Cost Kansans Even When Revenues Rise,” every special deal has an opportunity cost. Money used to benefit one company cannot also lower tax rates for every business, reduce property taxes for homeowners, or improve core services. Markets reward businesses that serve customers. Corporate welfare rewards businesses that win political approval.

Nobody Knows the Full CostThe audit also shows how weak the state’s cost estimates have been.

Auditors reviewed 23 projects and found that some cost-benefit analyses failed to capture the actual property tax impact by enormous amounts. Estimates ranged from 94 percent too low to 6,065 percent too high.

State Sen. Joe Claeys called the process “compliance theater.” That description fits. A cost-benefit study should help policymakers make better decisions. When estimates miss reality by thousands of percent, the study becomes little more than paperwork used to justify a deal already favored by officials.

Oversight was also weak. Sedgwick County found at least 112 property tax exemptions that were never sent to the Board of Tax Appeals for approval as required by law. County officials said the problem may have continued for as long as 30 years. If governments cannot measure the costs or follow their own rules, taxpayers should question why they are handing out special deals at all.

Special Deals Grow GovernmentEvery incentive requires applications, reviews, exemptions, reports, compliance checks, and audits. The system becomes more complicated while accountability becomes weaker.

Kansas has used corporate incentives for decades, yet the state still struggles with long-term growth. The 2026 Kansas Green Book shows Kansas has ranked poorly in private-sector job growth, wage growth, economic growth, and domestic migration over the past quarter-century. Special favors have not fixed those problems.

Kansas Needs Broad ReformKansas does not need better corporate welfare. It needs a better economic policy.

Lawmakers should phase out Industrial Revenue Bond tax abatements and replace them with less spending and lower tax rates to help every business. This could also include simplifying regulations, speeding up permitting, and keeping state spending from growing faster than population growth plus inflation, as recommended by the Sustainable Budget Project.

These reforms would help companies already operating in Kansas, not just businesses threatening to move unless they receive a subsidy.

Equal Rules Produce Better ResultsMilton Friedman often reminded us that people spend their own money more carefully than they spend someone else’s.

The audit proves his point.

Kansas taxpayers gave up at least $1.1 billion through a system with weak estimates, missing data, and poor oversight. Meanwhile, favored companies received benefits that ordinary businesses and homeowners did not.

Economic development should not depend on which company hires the best lobbyist or negotiates the largest tax break. The best incentive Kansas can offer is equal treatment: lower taxes, restrained spending, simple rules, and a government that protects opportunity instead of choosing winners.

That approach may produce fewer ribbon cuttings. It will produce more lasting prosperity.