Originally published on Substack. 

Economic debates can become complicated quickly. But one question cuts through much of the noise: Where do people prosper most?
​
The new Economic Freedom of the World 2026 report⁠ from the Fraser Institute provides overwhelming evidence that greater economic freedom is associated with more prosperity and better lives.

The report ranks 165 countries and territories based on five broad areas: size of government, legal systems and property rights, sound money, freedom to trade internationally, and regulation. The principles behind them are straightforward. People prosper when they can make more of their own economic decisions and voluntarily exchange with others.

Freedom and Prosperity

The differences between freer and less-free countries are substantial. Countries in the freest quarter had average GDP per person of $65,596 in 2024. In the least-free quarter, it was just $9,552.
​
Extreme poverty shows an even larger divide. Only 2% of people in the freest economies lived in extreme poverty, compared with 41% in the least-free economies. Life expectancy averaged nearly 81 years in the freest countries versus about 67 years in the least free.

These relationships do not prove that economic freedom alone causes every difference between countries. Geography, history, culture, institutions, and many other factors matter. But decades of research and the enormous differences across countries make the basic lesson difficult to ignore: societies organized around property rights, markets, voluntary exchange, and limited government tend to produce substantially better outcomes.

Look at the Rankings

Hong Kong ranks first, followed by Switzerland, Singapore, New Zealand, and the United States. Ireland, Denmark, Australia, Mauritius, Finland, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands are also among the leaders.
​
At the bottom are the Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Malawi, Algeria, Iran, Myanmar, Libya, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and, dead last, Venezuela.

Venezuela is an especially powerful warning about socialism. A country with enormous natural resources was devastated by nationalization, price controls, monetary destruction, attacks on property rights, and centralized political power.

Free-market capitalism isn’t perfect because people aren’t perfect. But capitalism harnesses prices, competition, private property, profits, and losses to coordinate millions of decisions without requiring politicians to plan the economy.

Socialism moves in the opposite direction by concentrating economic decisions in government.

Don’t Misread America’s Ranking

The United States ranks an impressive fifth, with an overall score of 8.21 out of 10. But there is an important catch: these rankings reflect 2024, before President Trump’s second term and many subsequent policy changes.
So we should not use the fifth-place ranking as a scorecard for today’s policies.
​
In fact, the report provides a preliminary estimate for 2025 and concludes that U.S. economic freedom declined by 0.12 points, citing changes involving government size, property rights and the rule of law, and especially new trade restrictions.

That deserves attention from conservatives as well as progressives. Bigger government doesn’t become economically sound because the party expanding it changes.

Tariffs restrict trade. Deficits expand government’s footprint. Regulations constrain choices. Subsidies and industrial policy let politicians favor some businesses over others.

Economic freedom requires consistent principles.

We Lost a Decade

The historical trend may be the report’s most important message.

Global economic freedom declined sharply around the pandemic as governments expanded spending, regulation, trade barriers, and monetary intervention. Freedom has since recovered somewhat, but the average country still has not returned to its pre-pandemic level. The report describes this as effectively erasing a decade of progress.

History repeatedly shows what happens when government replaces voluntary decisions with political ones.
​
The better direction is free-market capitalism: restrain government spending, keep taxes low and broad-based, protect property rights, maintain sound money, reduce unnecessary regulation, and allow people to trade freely
.
Economic freedom isn’t primarily about corporations or statistics. It’s about people having the freedom to pursue their calling, support their families, start businesses, take risks, and improve their lives.

The evidence is overwhelming.
​
More economic freedom gives people more opportunities to prosper.

Originally published on Substack. 

​Four years ago this month, I launched Ginn Economic Consulting.

When I left the Texas Public Policy Foundation in September 2022, I honestly wasn’t sure what came next. I knew the work I cared about. I knew the principles I believed in. I knew I wanted to keep advancing policies that would help people prosper. But I didn’t know exactly what the path would look like.

Four years later, I feel truly blessed by what has happened.

What began as a new venture has grown into a more than half-million-dollar firm working with organizations across the country on fiscal policy, taxes, healthcare, regulation, energy, technology, economic freedom, and other major policy issues.

The work has included policy research, commentaries, testimony, media interviews, speeches, executive briefings, podcasts, strategic communications, and a growing library of ideas built around one mission:

Let people prosper.

Today, that work reaches a broad and influential audience. Across platforms, I have 60,000 subscribers and followers and generate more than 600,000 impressions each month.

The podcast side has become another major part of that platform. This Week’s Economy has reached Episode 184, while the Let People Prosper Show has reached Episode 220.

That is more than 400 episodes devoted to making economics understandable, telling better stories, having important conversations, and advancing solutions that expand opportunity and prosperity. You can follow the shows on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and now iHeart.

The work also connects to practical policy frameworks—from sustainable budgeting and empowering patients and doctors to technology, property-tax reform, energy abundance, and pro-growth construction policy.
I’m deeply grateful to the clients, partners, policymakers, readers, listeners, and friends who have trusted me along the way.

I’m especially thankful for Mollie Johnson at Three Brooks Marketing, who has helped sharpen strategy, strengthen communications, improve branding, and keep projects moving.

And Matt Webber at Logou Media, who has helped elevate the Let People Prosper Show and This Week’s Economy through stronger editing, production, clips, thumbnails, and consistency.

Looking back, four things have driven much of this small-business success:

Principles. Clarity. Networking. Productivity.

Know what you believe and why. Explain it so people can understand it. Build relationships and serve people well. Then consistently do the work.

Relationships create trust. Reputation compounds. Consistency beats virality. Serving clients well creates the next opportunity.

But above all, I feel blessed.

I didn’t know exactly what I would do after September 2022. Looking back, I believe this path has been what God wanted for my family and me.

My hope is that the blessing extends far beyond us—that the research, stories, conversations, relationships, and reforms flowing from this work help many more people experience greater liberty, opportunity, and prosperity.
The next chapter is about connecting:

Research → Narrative → Media → Clients → Policy Influence → Prosperity

I’m grateful for the first four years. And I’m just getting started!

Join me today—subscribe, listen, share the work, explore the policy guides, or partner with Ginn Economic Consulting as we build the next chapter. How can I help you?

Why do we keep trying to manage scarcity instead of creating abundance?

In TWE 179, I explain how prices, profits, losses, entrepreneurship, and competition help free people turn scarcity into opportunity.

We explore Julian Simon's famous wager, housing shortages, energy and AI, healthcare, and why economic growth means prosperity isn't a fixed pie.

Markets aren't perfect. But lasting affordability comes from producing more, not simply controlling prices.

Scarcity is natural. Abundance is created.

Get show notes at vanceginn.substack.com.

​People have different beliefs, circumstances, preferences, callings, and understandings of what constitutes a good life. That is exactly why liberty matters.
​
The Debate Is Older Than Today’s Right

Constitutional limits reflect a deeper economic and political insight: government officials do not suddenly become neutral guardians of an objective common good simply because they hold public office.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has argued for a form of “common-good capitalism” in which public policy more deliberately steers economic activity toward preferred social outcomes. I understand the concern behind it. Families, meaningful work, strong communities, and human dignity matter.

But economist James Buchanan’s public-choice framework reminds us to practice “politics without romance.” Politicians and bureaucrats have incentives, biases, ambitions, and incomplete information just like everyone else. Moving a decision from markets into government does not magically transform self-interest into the “public interest.”

Milton Friedman posed the practical question: “Where do you draw the line?” That is exactly my concern. Once “this would be good for society” becomes enough to justify coercion, almost every part of life becomes open to political management.

The classical-liberal alternative is not moral relativism. It is humility: protect liberty and equal rights, then leave wide space for families, churches, communities, markets, and individuals to pursue the good without asking government for permission.

Liberty May Be the Real Common Good

If there is one political principle that comes closest to a common good, it is liberty under equal rights.

Liberty allows Christians, like me, to worship and raise families according to their faith. It allows people of other faiths to do the same. It lets entrepreneurs build businesses, workers choose occupations, families organize their lives, churches teach doctrine, and communities develop institutions without needing political approval.

That does not mean anything goes. Government has legitimate duties. Murder violates another person’s right to life. Theft violates property. Fraud violates consent and contract. Courts, national defense, policing, and protection of equal rights are proper government functions.

But protecting liberty is very different from government deciding what lifestyle, religion, industry, technology, family arrangement, economic outcome, or moral vision constitutes “the common good.”

The Founders Built Limits for a Reason
​
The Founders understood that people disagree.

In Federalist No. 10⁠, James Madison described factions arising from differences in religion, property, interests, and opinions. His solution was not to identify the correct faction and empower it. It was to design institutions that restrained political power.

In Federalist No. 51⁠, Madison explained that government must govern, but it must also control itself. That is the classical-liberal case. The Founders recognized shared interests, but they surrounded government with limits: enumerated powers, federalism, property rights, due process, religious liberty, and separation of powers.

Those restraints exist precisely because politicians should not have a blank check to impose their conception of the good.

Different Institutions Have Different Jobs

This matters even within Christianity. Families have responsibilities. Churches have responsibilities. Individuals have responsibilities. Civil government has responsibilities. The fact that all are ultimately accountable to God does not mean government inherits the authority of all the others.

Parents should raise children. Churches should teach faith and morality. Individuals should practice virtue. Businesses and markets should coordinate voluntary economic activity. Civil government should protect rights and public order.

Romans 13⁠ establishes legitimate civil authority. It does not make government society’s universal moral manager.

“Good” Is Not Enough to Establish Government Authority

This is where I remain skeptical of modern “common good” politics.

Exercise is good. Charity is good. Church attendance is good. Stable families are good. Saving is good. That does not mean government should compel them.

Much of what makes civilization good comes from institutions outside government: families, churches, charities, businesses, neighborhoods, voluntary associations, and markets. Government is part of society. It is not society itself.

Bottom Line

I do not think politicians can objectively define one comprehensive common good for millions of different people. And I certainly do not want them trying.

Liberty provides a better political foundation because it allows people to pursue truth, faith, virtue, prosperity, and service without handing coercive power to whichever faction temporarily controls government.

Protect life, liberty, property, contracts, and equal rights. Constrain political power. Then let families, churches, communities, markets, and free people pursue the good as they understand it.

The “common good” should never become a blank check for government. Liberty is the better starting point. And that is how we let people prosper.

​That line should be written on the wall of every state capitol, city hall, and congressional office in America.
​
For policymakers, the keys are clear: stop punishing success, remove barriers to abundance, and trust people to create value.

Too much of today’s politics teaches Americans that life is a fight over fixed money, success, and opportunity. If a business earns a profit, workers must be cheated. If another country sells us something, America must be losing. If new technology creates wealth, jobs must disappear.

That story is easy to believe when life feels expensive. Housing costs too much. Energy bills are painful. Groceries still sting. Families are working hard and wondering why the American Dream feels harder to reach.

But frustration does not turn bad economics into truth.

Prosperity is not a pie with only so many slices. If it were, America would have run out long ago. Each generation has had better medicine, transportation, communication, homes, and opportunities than the generation before it because free people kept baking more pies.

This is why the outrage over Elon Musk’s wealth misses the point. People see headlines about him becoming a trillionaire and assume that money was taken from everyone else.

But most of that wealth is not cash in a bank account. It is tied to ownership stakes in companies like Tesla and SpaceX, based on what investors think those companies may be worth. Those are unrealized capital gains. They can rise, fall, or disappear depending on whether the companies keep creating value.

A paper gain is not the same thing as income. Wealth created through ownership is not theft. It reflects expected future value from products, services, jobs, investment, and innovation that people voluntarily support.

A business owner does not succeed in a free market by stealing value. He succeeds by creating value that other people freely choose to buy. Customers get something they want. Workers earn wages. Suppliers gain business. Communities get jobs and services.

That is not exploitation. It is cooperation. And that is what too many policymakers miss.

They see profit and assume abuse. They see growth and assume greed. They see success and assume someone must have been harmed. So they respond with higher taxes, more rules, price controls, subsidies, tariffs, and mandates.

Then they wonder why life gets more expensive.

Builders are not why homes cost too much. Government makes building too hard and costly through zoning rules, permitting delays, fees, and neighborhood opposition. When fewer homes are built, prices rise.

Families are not struggling because America has too much affordable energy. They struggle when policy blocks production, delays infrastructure, and forces costly choices onto the grid. Less supply means higher prices. More supply means lower costs and more breathing room.

Tariffs may sound tough, but they are taxes on Americans. They make families and businesses pay more for what they need. America does not become richer by making goods more expensive. We become richer when people are free to buy, sell, specialize, and compete.

The same applies to artificial intelligence, data centers, and the next wave of technology. Change can be uncomfortable, but stopping innovation will not protect prosperity. It will destroy it. Productivity is how workers earn more because they can produce more value with better tools.

This is the choice before policymakers. They can build a politics of resentment that punishes success, restricts growth, and pretends government can manage scarcity better than free people can create abundance. Or they can build a policy agenda for prosperity by spending less, taxing less, regulating less, and trusting people more.

Markets are not perfect because people are not perfect. But free markets give people a chance to solve problems, learn from failure, serve others, and improve their lives. Government should protect property rights, enforce contracts, punish fraud, keep the rules fair, and stop micromanaging every outcome.

The American Dream was never about pulling successful people down. It was about giving more people the chance to rise.

Zero-sum economics teaches envy instead of effort and rewards blame instead of building. Someone else’s success does not take away from yours.

That is how people prosper.

America does not need leaders who fight over slices. America needs leaders who let people bake more pies. Will you accept this mission?

Originally published at The Daily Economy. 

One of the most misleading ideas in American politics is that the United States has a large, fixed class of permanently poor people stuck at the bottom year after year, while everyone else moves on without them.

That story is emotionally powerful. It also happens to be a poor guide for serious policy.

Poverty is real. Hardship is real. Some people do remain trapped for long periods, and that deserves serious attention. But the popular picture of a vast, permanent underclass does not describe most Americans who show up in the bottom income quintile in any given year. As economist Anthony Davies has put it, many are there because of “retirement, homework, and diaper rash.” That line works because it captures something basic: a snapshot of income is not the same thing as a life story.

Students often have very low current earnings. So do many retirees living on savings or Social Security instead of wages. So do young parents working fewer hours, people between jobs, and entrepreneurs in low-cash-flow years. Treating all of them as members of a permanent poor class is not compassion. It is a category mistake.

The data back that up. The Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances distinguishes between “actual” and “usual” income precisely because current-year income can be temporarily depressed. In 2010, about a quarter of families reported that their actual income was unusually low relative to normal. That matters because it means many households classified as poor in a given year are experiencing a temporary dip, not living permanently at the bottom. 

In fact, the same survey found that a large share of households in the lowest quintile by actual income ranked higher when measured by usual income instead.

The tax data tell the same story. A Treasury study tracking taxpayers from 1996 to 2005 found that about 56 percent moved to a different income quintile over the decade. More important, roughly half of those in the bottom quintile moved up by 2005, depending on the measure used. About 29 percent moved up one quintile, another 29 percent moved up at least two quintiles, and roughly five percent moved all the way from the bottom quintile to the top quintile. That is not what a rigid caste system looks like. It is a dynamic picture in which many people pass through low-income years rather than remain stuck there permanently.

This is where so much bad policy begins. Politicians see a one-year income snapshot and talk as if they are looking at a permanent social class. They are not. They are often looking at transition.

This does not mean every measure of mobility is strong. A lot of the confusion comes from mixing together two different questions. The first is short-run income mobility: do people move up or down within their own lives? On that question, the evidence clearly shows substantial movement. The second is intergenerational mobility: do children rise above the economic position of their parents? That is a different question, and the answer there is more mixed.

The newer Census mobility data show that income mobility varies significantly by geography, age, race, and sex. And other work has shown that absolute mobility has weakened relative to earlier generations. Those are serious concerns. But uneven mobility is not the same as a large, fixed, poor class.

The latest Archbridge Institute report on social mobility in the 50 states broadens the analysis beyond annual income. Archbridge evaluates mobility through four pillars: entrepreneurship and growth, institutions and the rule of law, education and skills development, and social capital. It also distinguishes between natural barriers such as family instability or social networks and artificial barriers created by policy, such as excessive occupational licensing, weak school choice, or heavy regulation. That is a much better framework than casually conflating poverty, inequality, and mobility. 

​The state rankings tell an important story. In Archbridge’s 2025 report, Utah ranked first, followed by Vermont, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. At the bottom were Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, New York, and Arkansas. That does not prove one policy explains everything. It does show that institutions matter.

Mobility is shaped by the rules, incentives, and social conditions people live under. The poor are not static, but the barriers they face can be.

This is where the free-market case becomes especially important. If you care about mobility, you should care about growth. The AEI “Land of Opportunity” project and its essay on the greatness of growth and the American Dream make the point clearly: growth is not a side issue. Growth is the oxygen of mobility. 

A faster-growing economy creates more businesses, more jobs, more opportunity, more room for incomes to rise, and more chances for people to accumulate wealth over time. A slower-growing economy makes class lines harder and mobility weaker.
That is why policies that burden growth hurt the poor most over time. Heavy regulation, bad schools, housing shortages, excessive licensing, and weak property rights do not just reduce efficiency in the abstract. They reduce mobility in practice.

A recent article highlights how land-use rules and housing constraints quietly kill mobility by making it harder for families to move to places with better labor-market opportunities. Another essay points to research showing that economic freedom, especially lighter regulation and stronger property rights, is associated with greater intergenerational mobility.

That is the key insight the static-poor narrative misses. If policymakers really want more upward mobility, the answer is not to freeze people into permanent income categories and redistribute more aggressively. The answer is to remove the barriers that keep people from climbing.

That means stronger growth, more entrepreneurship, more housing, better schools, more school choice, lower regulatory burdens, and institutions that reward work, saving, investment, and family stability. It also means respecting people’s freedom to vote with their feet toward states, cities, and communities with better opportunity. Mobility is not just something economists measure after the fact. It is something people actively pursue when they are free to move toward better institutions and opportunities.

The myth of the static poor survives because it is politically useful. It turns a moving picture into a still frame. It makes the government look like the only answer. But it misses the reality that most Americans who are poor at one point in time do not stay there forever, that incomes often rise over time, and that wealth accumulation frequently follows when people are free to work, save, invest, and build.

The real task is not to manage a permanently poor class. It is to build a freer society where more people can rise.

Originally published on Substack. 

​Happy Sunday. This is the day I try to step back from the daily policy fights and remember what matters most: faith, family, and the freedom that allows both to flourish.

Those three are not necessarily separate boxes. Faith shapes virtue. Freedom gives virtue room to act. Family carries those values forward into the next generation.

When government grows too large, it does not merely take more money. It crowds out responsibility, weakens civil society, and slowly convinces people that compassion comes from bureaucracy instead of transformed hearts.

That is why today’s reflection starts with the Good Samaritan.

In Luke 10, Jesus tells the story of a man beaten and left on the road. A Samaritan sees him, has compassion, binds his wounds, carries him to safety, pays for his care, and promises to return.

He does not file a petition with Rome, wait for a government program, or outsource mercy to bureaucracy.

He acts.

That is the model: personal, voluntary, costly, relational care. It is not state-mandated compassion. It is love of neighbor flowing from a changed heart.

Faith Comes First

Christianity is not a government program. It is a transformation of the heart.

When faith is real, people do not need a bureaucrat to tell them to care for the widow, the orphan, the poor, the stranger, or the suffering. Churches, charities, families, and neighbors are the first responders of a healthy society.

Faith-based civil society has done remarkable work for generations: hospitals, schools, food banks, adoption agencies, recovery programs, homeless shelters, crisis pregnancy centers, prison ministries, and countless quiet acts of service no agency report will ever capture.

These institutions do something government cannot do well. They know people by name. They walk with them. They pray with them. They stay after the form is filled out.

That is why I have been emphasizing that Jesus did not call government to replace personal responsibility and charity. He called people to love their neighbor.

Government can redistribute resources, but it cannot manufacture love. It can send a check, but it cannot replace a church family, a faithful friend, or a parent who refuses to give up on a child.

This is not an argument against helping people. It is an argument for helping people in the most human way possible.

Freedom Gives Virtue Room

Faith produces virtuous citizens. Freedom gives them room to act.

That is why classical liberalism is not cold, selfish, or merely economic. At its best, it is the political and economic framework most consistent with human dignity. It recognizes that people are made to choose, work, serve, build, give, worship, raise families, and pursue purpose.

Government’s role is limited but important: protect life, liberty, and property, enforce contracts, preserve order, and secure the conditions under which people can pursue happiness.

When government moves beyond that role, it does more than spend money. It starts replacing the institutions that make a free society possible.

Milton Friedman understood that economic freedom and political freedom rise or fall together. If government controls the resources, it eventually controls the choices. If it controls the choices, liberty becomes permission.

This is not abstract. Property taxes are a major example. If government can tax your home forever and take it if you cannot pay, you do not fully own your home. You are renting from the state. That is why I released my new report, Securing Ownership by Eliminating Property Taxes, and why I continue arguing that property tax relief must start with spending restraint.
​
The same principle applies to exit taxes. When states punish people for leaving, they are admitting failure. A free people should be able to vote with their feet. If policymakers want people to stay, they should lower taxes, restrain spending, reduce regulation, and make their states worth staying in.

As I wrote this week, government keeps finding ways to trap people. Faith, freedom, and family are the way out.

Family Carries It Forward

Family is where faith and freedom bear fruit. Families are where children learn right and wrong, where faith is modeled before it is explained, where work ethic is built, where sacrifice becomes normal, and where love becomes daily practice.

Policy cannot create strong families. But bad policy can make family life much harder.

When government taxes too much, families have less room to save, give, invest, and build. When property taxes rise year after year, parents and retirees are less secure in their homes. When schools are run more for systems than students, children suffer. When health care is managed by bureaucracies and third-party payers, patients and doctors lose control. That is why I continue arguing that we should empower patients, not bureaucracies.

Real pro-family policy is mostly restraint.

Do not tax families into stress. Do not regulate their choices into compliance. Do not replace parents with agencies. Do not trap children in schools that do not serve them. Do not use inflation and debt to shift costs onto the next generation.

Let parents lead. Let churches serve. Let businesses build. Let families keep more of what they earn.

That is not neglect. That is humility. It recognizes that families and civil society usually know more than politicians and bureaucrats about what people actually need.

What Policymakers Should Learn

The pressure to expand government is constant.

Every crisis becomes a reason for more spending. Every inequity becomes a mandate. Every problem becomes a program. Every program becomes permanent.

But government growth has a cost beyond the budget.

It weakens the habits of responsibility that sustain freedom. It crowds out voluntary service. It makes families more dependent on political decisions. It turns citizens into clients and neighbors into strangers.

A free society needs something better.

It needs faith that forms character, families that pass down virtue, markets that reward service and work, property rights that protect independence, churches and charities free to serve, and government limited enough to let all of this happen.

That is why spending restraint matters so much. Limiting government spending growth to no more than population growth plus inflation is not just a fiscal rule. It is a moral discipline. It tells government that families must come first, taxpayers have limits, and civil society needs room to breathe.

This is the same North Star behind my work on responsible budgets, property tax elimination, and broader efforts to help policymakers choose freedom over control.

The Bottom Line

The Good Samaritan reminds us that compassion is not proven by how much government spends. It is proven by how people love, serve, sacrifice, and take responsibility.

Faith changes hearts. Freedom gives those hearts room to act. Family carries the fruit forward.

Classical liberalism is not hostile to faith or family. It is the framework that best protects them because it limits the state, protects property, rewards work, preserves voluntary association, and leaves room for civil society to do what government never can.

That is the society worth building: one where churches outserve bureaucracies, families build across generations, markets create opportunity, and free people use their liberty to love their neighbors well.

That is how we let people prosper.

Five Takeaways for Policymakers

1. Civil society is not a backup plan.

Faith-based institutions, families, charities, and local communities are often better equipped than government to provide personal, relational care.

2. Spending restraint protects freedom.

Government spending should grow no faster than population growth plus inflation, and preferably less.

3. Property taxes undermine family security.

True ownership requires ending the government’s perpetual claim on homes through strict spending limits and surplus-driven tax compression.

4. Real pro-family policy is restraint.

Protect parental rights, expand school choice, lower taxes, reduce regulation, and stop replacing family authority with state programs.

5. Freedom and virtue need each other.

A free society depends on virtuous citizens, and virtuous citizens need freedom to serve, build, worship, give, and raise the next generation.

Thank you for reading and reflecting with me this Sunday. If this resonated, share it with someone who cares about faith, family, freedom, and the future of this country.

You can find more of my writings and subscribe to the Let People Prosper newsletter today.

Originally published on Substack. 

​If you’re like me, Sunday is a good time to step back from the noise.

During the week, it is easy to get buried in headlines about inflation, debt, gas prices, housing costs, health care, political fights, and all the other problems weighing on families. And let’s be honest: a lot of people are tired.

Parents are working hard but feeling like they are falling behind. Young families wonder whether they can afford a home. Small business owners are squeezed by costs they did not create. Families look at grocery bills, insurance premiums, and credit card balances and ask: How did life get this expensive?

I tell my loved ones that I do not think despair is the answer.

Concern? Yes.

Truth? Absolutely.

Despair? No.

As a Christian, husband, father of three, economist, and classical liberal, I believe people are made for more than being managed by government. Families are not line items. Workers are not tax units. Children are not future revenue sources. People have dignity, responsibility, creativity, and the God-given ability to build, serve, love, work, and flourish.

That is why policy matters.

Bad Policy Hurts Families

Bad policy does not just hurt “the economy.” It hurts marriages, children, churches, businesses, and communities.

When government spends too much, families eventually pay. They pay through higher taxes, higher prices, higher interest rates, more regulation, and fewer opportunities.

When politicians block energy, housing, health care competition, entrepreneurship, and school choice, families pay again.
When government tries to do too much, it crowds out the people and institutions that should matter most: parents, churches, charities, businesses, neighborhoods, and civil society.

That is not compassion. That is control.

Freedom Protects Human Dignity

This is why I keep coming back to classical liberalism.

Some people hear “free markets” and think cold economics. I see something much more human.

Freedom means parents can choose what is best for their children.

It means workers can keep more of what they earn.
It means entrepreneurs can build without begging bureaucrats for permission.
It means patients and doctors can make decisions without endless middlemen.
It means churches and charities can serve without being crowded out by government programs.
It means families have room to breathe.

Markets are not perfect because people are not perfect. But markets respect choice, responsibility, and human dignity better than centralized control ever can.

Faith Teaches Humility

Faith teaches us that no person, politician, or agency has all the answers.

That is also one of the great insights of sound economics. Friedrich Hayek warned that central planners lack the knowledge needed to manage complex human lives. Milton Friedman reminded us to judge policies by results, not intentions.

That wisdom matters right now.

A policy may sound compassionate and still hurt families. A program may promise relief and still make life more expensive. A regulation may claim to protect people and still limit opportunity.

Good intentions are not enough. Results matter.

And the results of too much government are clear: families stretched thin, debt rising, prices higher, and trust falling.

Hope Requires Action

Hope is not passive.

Hope means telling the truth and choosing a better path.

For policymakers, that path is not complicated:

Spend less.
Tax less.
Regulate less.
Let people build.
Let parents lead.
Let churches serve.
Let businesses compete.
Let families prosper.
​
That does not mean government has no role. It means government should know its limits.

The best things in life do not come from Washington or any state capitol. They come from faith, family, work, community, service, and voluntary cooperation.

Government should protect those things, not replace them.

Three Reminders for Policymakers

1. Families are the test.

If a policy makes it harder to buy groceries, fill the tank, afford a home, see a doctor, educate children, or save for the future, rethink it.

2. Stewardship matters.

Deficits, inflation, and overspending are not just budget problems. They are moral problems because they shift burdens onto families and future generations.

3. Freedom creates hope.

More energy, housing, health care choice, education freedom, entrepreneurship, and civil society will do more for families than more government control ever will.

The Bottom Line

America does not need more despair.

It needs better stewardship.

Faith reminds us our hope is not in government. Classical liberalism reminds us government should be limited because people, families, churches, businesses, and communities are the real sources of flourishing.

That is the message I want to bring more often on Sundays:

Tell the truth.
Keep the faith.
Defend freedom.
Love your family.
Serve your neighbor.
And let people prosper.