Similar version originally published at Texans for Fiscal Responsibility. ​

As Texas faces rising property taxes and record-high government spending, it’s time to reassess the path toward long-term prosperity. Recent data illustrates Texas’ strengths and challenges. In August 2024, Texas maintained a 4.1% unemployment rate, while the state’s GDP grew by 3.5% in Q2 2024, outpacing national averages. However, the last legislative session resulted in unprecedented government spending increases, threatening Texas’ fiscal stability. 

The solution is clear: spending cuts, lower taxes, and imposing the strongest possible spending limits on state and local governments. This can be done by ending excessive spending of at least $30 billion, which is a 15% cut in state funds.

Corporate Welfare: A Drain on Taxpayers of $10 billion
New constitutionally-dedicated funds like the $5 billion to Texas Energy Loan Fund, $1 billion to Texas Water Fund, and $1.5 billion to Texas Broadband Infrastructure Fund create even more opportunities for contractors and financial firms to benefit at the taxpayer’s expense. Expanding these programs is already being discussed, adding to concerns about unchecked government spending. Not spending these funds and instead redirecting them toward broad-based tax relief would benefit all Texans, not just a select few private entities. Other corporate welfare programs like the Texas Enterprise Fund (TEF) and Chapter 403, the newly revamped property tax abatement program that replaced the expired Chapter 313, continue to burden taxpayers. 

Overfunding the Government School System by $17 billion Annually
Texas is overfunding its monopoly government school system, spending billions of dollars annually on a system that lacks competition and efficiency. A transition to universal Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) would inject competition into the education sector, allowing parents to choose the best educational options for their children. Moving to universal ESAs could save the state an estimated $17 billion per year by allowing the state to spend $12,000 per 6.3 million school-age kids instead of $16,792 per 5.5 million enrolled at government schools. These savings could be used to eliminate school property taxes, providing meaningful relief for homeowners and fostering a more dynamic, competitive education system.

Medicaid Reform: Lowering Costs with HSAs for Savings of At Least $3 billion Annually
Healthcare spending, especially through Medicaid, is another area where Texas can find significant savings. Shifting Medicaid recipients to work requirements and Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) would encourage more cost-effective healthcare decisions, saving the state at least $3 billion annually. These savings could then be applied toward property tax relief, allowing Texans to benefit from lower overall taxes while promoting personal responsibility in healthcare. 

Achieving Property Tax Elimination Through Fiscal Discipline
By combining savings from eliminating corporate welfare, passing school choice, and reforming Medicaid, Texas could save at least $30 billion per year. These funds could eliminate most, if not all, school district M&O property taxes, providing substantial relief for homeowners. It is also critical to enact the strongest possible constitutional spending limit, tying state and local government spending growth to a maximum of population growth plus inflation. But with record spending increases in the most recent legislative session, including the creation of the Texas Water Fund and Texas Broadband Fund, it’s crucial to cut government spending, pass Frozen Texas Budgets, and provide fiscal responsibility.

Securing Texas’ Economic Future
Texas is at a crossroads. While the state’s economy remains relatively strong, with low unemployment and impressive GDP growth, the rapid rise in government spending, corporate welfare, and property taxes pose significant risks to its long-term success. Texas can secure a prosperous future by embracing a strategy of lower taxes, spending restraint, and market-driven reforms. Eliminating corporate welfare, expanding school choice, and adopting Medicaid reform will unleash the opportunity to eliminate school district M&O property taxes, allowing Texans to keep more of their income and ensuring that the state remains a beacon of economic freedom.

Originally published at American Institute for Economic Research.

​On November 5, North Dakota will vote on Measure 4, a ballot measure that could make it the first state to eliminate property taxes. This decision isn’t just a local concern; it’s a critical moment that could shape the future of property tax reform nationwide. 

If successful, the measure will challenge the notion that property taxes are a permanent fixture, forcing us to reconsider the tax model that has held American homeowners in a perpetual cycle of payments to the government. 

While Measure 4 opens a path toward exploring tax systems that foster true homeownership and economic freedom, there’s a significant caution. Without first eliminating personal income taxes and establishing a clear, structured plan to replace funding for essential government services, North Dakota could face fiscal and economic headwinds.

Property Taxes: An Endless Burden on Homeowners
Property taxes impose a recurring burden on homeowners, functioning as an annual wealth tax that rises yearly, driven by local government assessments and tax rates. Even once a mortgage is paid off, homeowners must continue to pay these taxes, making them permanent renters from the government. This system is particularly harmful to retirees, fixed-income earners, and families trying to keep up with rising housing costs. 

Property taxes create a compounding burden in Texas and elsewhere due to rising property values assessed by government appraisers and rates set by various taxing entities. This “double impact” on property taxes drives many taxpayers to the edge financially, even if they’ve lived in their homes for decades.

The reality is that property taxes are an economic anchor, tying property owners to the whims of government budgets and leaving little flexibility to opt out of escalating taxes. Appraisal limits, like those in California’s Proposition 13, attempt to keep assessments under control. Still, they result in an inequitable “lock-in” effect that penalizes new buyers with higher rates and discourages turnover. This system has also increased housing prices, making it harder for new buyers to enter the market while reducing the motivation for existing homeowners to downsize or relocate.

Why Eliminate Income Taxes First?
The best starting point for states looking to reform their tax systems is elimination of the income tax. Income taxes directly tax labor and productivity, discouraging work and reducing individual take-home pay. 

States that have avoided income taxes — like Texas, Florida, and Tennessee — have seen impressive economic growth and strong net migration rates due to their lower tax burdens and other factors. Florida and Tennessee, though not Texas, have managed to keep property taxes more reasonable by practicing better local spending restraint and avoiding the need to offset forgone income taxes with higher local taxes. This approach fully incentivizes labor and draws businesses and families seeking a more favorable tax environment.

Once income taxes are removed, states can focus on property taxes, which burden homeownership by taxing unrealized gains on property values, acting much like a wealth tax. Without income taxes, states can adopt more consumption-based models, particularly a flat final sales tax, that avoids taxing wealth or earnings directly and ties tax burdens to individuals’ activity in market. This sequence of reform — income tax elimination followed by property tax reduction — can lay a solid foundation for sustainable growth and homeowner stability.

How North Dakota and Texas Can Lead on Property Tax Reform
North Dakota has an opportunity to demonstrate that a state can operate without property taxes, but success requires spending control and careful planning. 
Although critics argue that the estimated $3.15 billion biennial revenue from property taxes funds vital services, North Dakota’s $11 billion reserve fund, and strong oil-driven revenue give it unique fiscal flexibility. The state would benefit, however, from placing spending limits tied to population growth and inflation, similar to Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), to ensure that budget growth does not erode tax relief.

Texas, too, provides a relevant case study. Over the past decade, Texas lawmakers have allocated funds to reduce school district maintenance and operations (M&O) property taxes, but excessive state and local government spending has minimized the relief’s impact. Despite a $32.7 billion surplus last year, only $12.7 billion was used for property tax relief, with most of the rest going toward increasing state spending, which increased by a record 32 percent. The result was minimal total property tax reduction because other local taxing entities raised their property taxes substantially.
Without strict state and local spending caps, even substantial surplus funds can fail to yield lasting tax relief.

The Cautionary Note for North Dakota’s Measure 4
While North Dakota’s vote on Measure 4 is a bold step, it comes with potential pitfalls. 

With a well-defined replacement plan for the revenue currently generated by property taxes, the state could avoid fiscal challenges that offset the intended benefits of property tax elimination. Measure 4 leaves it up to the state legislature to devise a revenue strategy. Essential services could suffer budget shortfalls, forcing the state into difficult cuts or prompting alternative tax increases.

Furthermore, the absence of a strategic plan could lead to ad hoc fiscal decisions, causing instability for residents and uncertainty in budgeting. To make property tax elimination feasible, North Dakota must adopt firm spending controls to match any revenue replacement strategy. By securing the proper fiscal framework, the state could avoid potential pitfalls and ensure that this ambitious tax reform strengthens, rather than destabilizes, its economic foundation.

Addressing Both State and Local Property Taxes
The most effective approach is to address property taxes at the state and local levels.
 
States should take the lead in eliminating school district property taxes, which often constitute a major portion of the overall property tax burden. In Texas, for example, school district taxes are “local” in name only, as state-level finance formulas heavily influence them. Once these are phased out at the state level, local governments should then work toward eliminating other types of property taxes, using surpluses and revenue growth to reduce rates to zero gradually.

By creating a model that addresses school district property taxes through state policy and the rest through local adjustments, states avoid funneling taxpayer dollars to local governments to subsidize shortfalls. Prioritizing true local control prevents the inefficient redistribution of funds from state coffers to local budgets.

Shifting to a Consumption-Based Tax Model
Replacing property taxes with a consumption-based tax, such as a broad-based final sales tax, would align the tax system more closely with individual spending power. Unlike property taxes, levied regardless of a homeowner’s choices, sales taxes are paid when residents choose to spend. This method introduces flexibility for taxpayers, who can control their tax contributions more directly rather than bearing a constant, unavoidable tax burden on their homes.
​
North Dakota could adopt a broader sales tax base or modest rate adjustments to offset lost property tax revenue while maintaining competitive tax rates. Tennessee and Florida offer strong examples of how states without income taxes have kept overall property tax burdens relatively low through spending restraints and controlled local budgets.

​Join me for Episode 119 of the Let People Prosper Show with Dr. Peter Boettke, a Distinguished University Professor of Economics at George Mason University, the BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism, and the Director of the F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Pete recently received the Public Choice Society's highest academic honor for his significant contributions to Public Choice scholarship.

In our conversation, Pete discusses the evolution of economic thought, the importance of education in shaping economists, and the role of government in economics. We explore personal experiences that led them to economics, the influence of key figures like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, and the challenges of public governance. The discussion emphasizes the need for economic literacy, the importance of rules in policy, and the future of economic thought in addressing contemporary issues.

Please share and rate the Let People Prosper Show wherever you get your podcasts, visit vanceginn.com for more insights, and subscribe to my newsletter for show notes at vanceginn.substack.com.

Originally published at Washington Times.

​As Halloween approaches, it’s not just haunted houses and ghosts that should send chills down your spine. The real nightmare is America’s fiscal crisis — a terrifying collision of unsustainable spending and an exploding national debt.
​
At the heart of the fright are the country’s spiraling mandatory Medicare and Social Security programs, which account for about half the federal budget. As Medicare creeps toward insolvency by 2036, proposals for even more spending, such as “Medicare for All,” and amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants threaten to send the country faster over a fiscal cliff.

The Biden-Harris administration’s policies have led to a surge in illegal immigration, with an estimated 12.5 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. Proposals to grant them legal status may sound appealing. Still, they further strain social services such as Medicare.

Because Medicare is a pay-as-you-go system that relies on payroll taxes from current workers to fund retirees’ health care, adding millions of new recipients — many of whom are older — would only accelerate the program’s ensuing collapse. The estimated 90% of illegal immigrants here younger than 55 could be eligible with 10 years of work history before turning 65. The aggregate cost to taxpayers of recipients retiring later could be at least $1.8 trillion over time.

Vice President Kamala Harris’ Medicare for All plan, coupled with amnesty, could cost $2 trillion more over the next decade to cover newly legalized immigrants, as a new study states.

Combined with the full cost of Medicare for All for current Americans, the net cost could be $44 trillion, demanding unprecedented tax increases or massive cuts to essential services.

And while Ms. Harris argues that these programs promote fairness and access, the fiscal reality is terrifying. The government’s spending would spiral out of control, with no clear way to rein in the costs.

Former President Donald Trump has emphasized stricter immigration laws and border security. While Mr. Trump’s approach may help reduce the immediate costs of adding more people to programs such as Medicare, it does little to address the deeper issues of an aging population and soaring health care costs. Unless something is done to reform Medicare, the program will remain a ticking time bomb.

The fiscal implications of immigration are complex. On the one hand, younger, higher-skilled immigrants contribute to the economy by filling labor shortages and paying taxes, which help support programs such as Medicare. On the other hand, older and lower-skilled immigrants tend to impose a net drain on public resources.

Research shows that immigrants arriving in the U.S. after age 55 can impose a fiscal burden of up to $400,000 over their lifetime, while younger, educated immigrants contribute more than $1 million to the federal budget. Blanket amnesty would fail to account for these differences, much like a one-size-fits-all costume that doesn’t fit anyone quite right.

The real horror story, however, is Medicare itself. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 was meant to curb rising health care costs, but it has only added to the chaos. With price controls on prescription drugs, Medicare premiums are rising faster than ever, up 21% in 2024 alone, and the number of available drug plans has dropped by nearly 100.

Rather than containing costs, the law’s price controls have stifled innovation and driven up prices, meaning older Americans have fewer and more expensive options. This could become a nightmare when access and quality of care are sacrificed.

So, what’s the way out of this fiscal haunted house?

First, the U.S. needs a sustainable budget with a strict federal spending cap tied to population growth and inflation. We can avoid the terrifying prospect of runaway deficits by cutting spending now and limiting how fast the government can spend after that. Expanding work requirements for government assistance programs such as Medicaid would help reduce dependency on taxpayer-funded benefits and encourage self-sufficiency.

A market-based reform system is crucial for immigration. A solution is a visa auction system where employers bid on visas for immigrants based on their skills and economic value.

By pricing visas based on demand, the U.S. could ensure that immigrants contribute meaningfully to the economy while filling labor gaps without burdening social services. Such a system would be a much-needed reform to correct decades of failed immigration policies and prevent the horrors of government failures.

If America wants to avoid fiscal disaster, policymakers must confront these issues head-on. Granting amnesty and expanding Medicare without reform is like opening the door to a haunted house — you may not know what horrors await, but you know they’re lurking. By balancing immigration with sustainable economic policies and reforming programs like Medicare, the U.S. can ensure a more prosperous, fiscally sound future.

The time to act is now before this fiscal nightmare becomes a reality.

​This week’s episode tackles some of the most pressing economic issues before the upcoming election. We dive into both presidential candidates' economic proposals and how policies like tariffs, price controls, and intervention in the Federal Reserve are creating concern among economists. We also explore policymakers’ attempts to control prices and quantities of goods, the ongoing debate over school choice, and how the Nobel Prize in Economics brings new perspectives on prosperity and immigration. 

Watch the episode on YouTube below, listen to it on Apple Podcast or Spotify, visit my website for more information, and get show notes at www.vanceginn.substack.com.

Originally posted at American Enterprise Institute and by Kevin Kosar. 

​Regular readers know that I am worried about the federal budget. The nation is $35 trillion in debt and neither party in Congress has a shown real interest in staunching the flood of red ink or fixing the 50-year old congressional budget process. America spends more on interest on the national debt than on national defense and Medicare.

Last month, former Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY) reminded us that the current budget process does not force Congress to consider revenue and spending issues in tandem when it is budgeting. So, unsurprisingly, elected officials are happy to enact tax cuts while increasing spending.

This fiscal insanity cannot continue forever. Social Security benefits will be cut if Congress does not do something. And who knows, maybe financiers and foreign nations will decide they just do not want to keep purchasing so many U.S. government bonds, and a debt crisis will erupt.

My chat with Dr. Vance Ginn, who worked at the Office of Management and Budget and hosts the Let People Prosper show and podcast, reminded me of two truths:

1. The president’s formal powers over aggregate revenue-raising and spending are very modest. Congress can ignore his proposed budget and the chief executive’s powers are marginal—he can reprogram and transfer funds, for example.
2. Yet, As budget guru Dr. Allen Schick explained on the Understanding Congress podcast long ago, the president plays a key role. He can focus a nation’s attention on a budgetary problem, and thereby create the space for legislators to take unpopular votes that address the problem.

To date, neither party’s candidate for president shows any interest in leading on budget issues. In fact, each of them has proposed policy plans that would increase the deficit and debt, which is dispiriting.

Originally published at Texans for Fiscal Responsibility.

Big Government Is Holding America Back
America’s federal debt has now skyrocketed past $35 trillion—an increase of $2.3 trillion in just the last fiscal year. Inflation persists, with core prices rising 3.3% over the past year. Meanwhile, government jobs are growing faster than private sector employment, which is draining the economy. 

The warning signs are everywhere: big government stifles growth, and the solution is less intervention, not more.

Debt, Deficit, and Sluggish Growth: The Hidden Costs of Overspending
​The U.S. is on an unsustainable fiscal path. A $2.3 trillion deficit and a debt-to-GDP ratio of about 125% are squeezing private investment essential for real, long-term economic growth. Instead, Keynesian-style interventions aimed at boosting demand through government spending have ballooned the national debt and undermined productivity.

Historically, government spending programs have delivered questionable short-term benefits but have left long-term economic consequences. The more the government grows, the more it crowds out the private sector’s ability to innovate and create high-quality jobs. This economic distortion is only deepening as Washington pours more money into inefficient programs while ignoring the importance of fiscal responsibility.

Inflation: The Persistent Threat to Household Budgets
September’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) showed a 2.4% overall increase, with core inflation excluding food and energy at 3.3%. While inflation has cooled from its 2022 peak, these numbers are still too high. American households feel the squeeze as the cost of essentials like shelter and services continues to rise, undermining real wage growth. Average weekly earnings adjusted for inflation have been down 3.4% since Biden-Harris took office in January 2021. It is no wonder that nearly 60% of Americans believe we are in a recession.

The Federal Reserve’s monetary excess continues to cause inflation. Between 2020 and 2021, the money supply expanded by over 40%, sparking inflation. The federal government’s continued spending spree makes it difficult for the Fed to drain its bloated $7 trillion balance sheet, so inflation will be around much longer than otherwise. This is because the Fed chooses to not let interest rates rise to fund the increased national debt, so it prints more money and disrupts economic activity, contributing to the fragile economy we have today.

Labor Market Distortion: Government Outpacing the Private Sector
On the surface, the U.S. labor market appears strong. The economy added 254,000 jobs in September, with private-sector employment increasing by 223,000. However, government jobs grew by 31,000, continuing a troubling trend that has persisted since April 2023. Government employment has been rising faster than private-sector jobs, shifting the labor market toward less productive sectors. This growth of government payrolls is not just unsustainable—it’s a drag on economic dynamism.

Private sector jobs are the engine of innovation and prosperity, but when the government grows at the expense of the private sector, it hampers job quality and wage growth. Real average hourly earnings remain below pre-pandemic levels, leaving workers with less purchasing power despite more jobs. Expanding government employment also means higher costs for taxpayers and more resources diverted from productive economic activity.

Texas: A Model of Free-Market Success
Texas exemplifies how free-market policies can lead to robust economic growth. The state’s low taxes, minimal regulation, and pro-business environment have consistently helped it outperform national job creation and economic growth averages. However, even Texas is not immune to the negative impacts of federal policy and its big-government, Keynesian creep. The crowding-out effect of federal debt growth and regulatory burdens imposed by Washington are raising costs for businesses and consumers alike.

To maintain its competitive edge, Texas must continue pushing for property tax elimination and spending limits at the state and local levels with a maximum of population growth plus inflation, but with excessive spending in recent years, there’s more evidence to at least freeze these budgets if not cut them by 10% or more. Phasing out school district M&O property taxes by state surpluses is essential for sustainable fiscal management and long-term growth. By keeping the government in check, Texas can remain a national leader in economic freedom.

Free-Market Capitalism: The Path Forward
The solution to America’s economic woes is clear: embrace free-market capitalism and reduce the size of government. Policymakers should focus on:

1. Cutting Government Spending: Reducing spending will help control inflation, lower deficits, and allow the private sector to flourish. 
2. Reforming Taxes: Cutting taxes on individuals and businesses will increase disposable income, encourage investment, and support more job creation.
3. Deregulating the Economy: Removing burdensome regulations will reduce business costs, spur innovation, and create high-paying jobs.
4. Ending Monetary Excesses: A disciplined approach to monetary policy is essential to restoring confidence in the dollar and curbing inflation.

​
Milton Friedman once said, “The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate voluntarily is through the free market.” This wisdom remains true today. America’s best chance for renewed prosperity is shifting from big-government Keynesianism toward free-market capitalism with strict fiscal and monetary rules and massive deregulation.

Originally published at AIER. 

A viral clip on X (formerly Twitter) has reignited the debate over rent control, and for good reason. 

The video features a New York City tenant, Hattie Kol, paying just $1,334 monthly for a 1,500-square-foot Upper West Side luxury apartment with fireplaces, chandeliers, and a butler’s pantry. This rent is well below the market rate and median rent in the city of $3,500. Her family acquired the unit through rent stabilization 22 years ago, allowing her to stay indefinitely. She is now paying only 39 percent of the median rent in the city, highlighting the mismatch created by rent control. 

While this may seem like a win for the tenant, it’s a loss for the broader market, particularly for lower-income renters forced to compete in an increasingly constrained housing market.

At its core, rent control is a well-intentioned policy aimed at keeping housing affordable by capping rents. However, it disrupts the natural balance of supply and demand, discouraging developers from building new housing and disincentivizing landlords from maintaining or upgrading existing units. 

In the long run, this creates a housing shortage and degrades the quality of available units, all while keeping the most vulnerable renters stuck in a perpetual housing crisis.

The Flawed Economics of Price Controls
Rent control is a classic case of how price controls distort markets. By capping rents below the market rate, it prevents prices from reflecting the true quantity demanded and supplied for housing. This results in fewer new units being built and existing properties falling into disrepair because landlords have less incentive to invest in them. By reducing the quantity supplied of housing, rent control limits choices and increases the quantity demanded for the few units that remain on the market.

The economic consensus against rent control is overwhelming. Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman famously argued that price controls, including rent control, are among the surest ways to create shortages. In the case of housing, this policy leaves cities like New York with fewer affordable units and an overall decline in the quality of available housing.

Who Benefits From Rent Control?
While rent control is marketed as a tool to help low-income renters, the reality is quite different. Higher-income tenants often benefit the most, locking in rent-controlled units because they pay far below market value. In cities like New York and San Francisco, people who can easily afford market rates stay in these units for years, while low-income families face fierce competition for a limited number of affordable apartments.

The woman in the viral clip is paying just 39 percent of the market rent, but there’s no evidence she needs that discount to survive. Meanwhile, those who do need affordable housing are crowded out. The result is a system where rent control helps the fortunate few while pushing the most vulnerable out of the market.

Government Failures vs. “Market Failures”
Proponents of rent control often cite “market failures” to justify government intervention. However, government failures are far more damaging, especially in housing. Rent control policies in places like New York and San Francisco have created severe housing shortages, leading to skyrocketing rents in the non-controlled market and forcing people to compete for fewer and fewer units.

Take Houston, a city that has embraced more free-market housing policies. Without zoning laws or rent control, Houston has managed to maintain much more affordable housing by encouraging the free market to meet demand. Rather than dictating prices, the city has allowed builders and developers to respond naturally to market signals, increasing housing supply and lowering prices.

The Unintended Consequences of Rent Control
​One of the greatest flaws in rent control is that it fails to address the underlying reasons for high rents. Instead of tackling restrictive zoning laws, excessive regulations, high property taxes, rising insurance, or other government-imposed barriers that drive up housing costs, rent control merely treats the symptoms. The result is fewer available units, a deteriorating rental stock, and even higher rents for those outside the rent-controlled system.

Landlords, faced with below-market rents, often convert rental units into condos or leave them vacant rather than rent them out at lower rates. This leads to a further reduction in available rentals and worse living conditions for tenants. It’s a vicious cycle that harms the housing market and the people relying on it.

The Path Forward: Embracing Free Markets
The solution to housing affordability isn’t more government intervention — it’s less. Instead of imposing price controls that distort the market, governments should focus on reducing housing construction and investment barriers. This means reforming zoning laws, streamlining building regulations, and encouraging new development. By allowing the market to function freely, we can increase housing supply, drive down costs, and create more opportunities for people at all income levels.

The viral clip on X is a powerful reminder of why rent control fails. While it may provide short-term relief for a select few, it harms the broader housing market and exacerbates the problems it purports to solve. If we want to make housing truly affordable, we need to let the market work — by encouraging development, reducing regulatory burdens, and allowing supply to meet demand.

Let’s move beyond failed policies like rent control and embrace free-market solutions that benefit everyone, especially those needing affordable housing.

​Join me for Episode 117 of the Let People Prosper Show with Dr. Tom Oliverson, state representative of Texas, for a thought-provoking discussion about key policy issues in Texas, such as property taxes, the budget, and insurance policy, and what this means for the upcoming 2025 Legislative Session.

Please share and rate the Let People Prosper Show wherever you get your podcasts, visit vanceginn.com for more insights, and subscribe to my newsletter for show notes at vanceginn.substack.com.