Originally posted at Pelican Institute.

​The latest economic data for Louisiana paint a troubling picture of slow job growth, lagging income gains, and continued out-migration. While the state saw a modest population increase in 2024 after years of decline, thousands of residents still left for better opportunities elsewhere. Louisiana continues to struggle with weak economic performance compared to neighboring states, reinforcing the urgent need for pro-growth reforms that create jobs, attract investment, and make the state a more competitive place to live and work.

Job Growth Lags Behind Neighboring States
Louisiana’s nonfarm employment grew by 9,400 in the fourth quarter of 2024, bringing total employment to 1.97 million. This represents an average of 3,133 new jobs per month, which is positive but still well below the pace of growth in the region. Compared to the previous year, Louisiana had the slowest job growth rate in the third quarter of 2024 among neighboring states, increasing by just 0.9%.

For comparison, states likeAlabama (1.9%),Arkansas (1.8%),Mississippi (1.3%), andTexas (2.0%) all outpaced Louisiana in job creation. Florida added 218,700 jobs (1.5%) over the same period, while Texas saw 293,100 new jobs (2.0%). Louisiana’s sluggish job growth means fewer opportunities for residents and less economic dynamism.

Economic Growth Among the Weakest in the Nation
Louisiana’s real GDP grew by 2.3% in the third quarter of 2024, bringing the total economic output to $257.2 billion. Unfortunately, this ranked 38th among U.S. states and was the worst growth rate in the region.

By contrast, states likeAlabama (6.0%),Arkansas (6.9%), andTexas (4.2%) experienced much stronger economic growth. The national economy also grew faster, meaning Louisiana is falling behind in its ability to expand businesses, attract capital, and create high-paying jobs.

Personal Income Growth Remains Weak
Personal income growth is key to economic prosperity, yet Louisiana ranks near the bottom nationally. In the third quarter of 2024, personal income in the state grew by just 2.3%, placing Louisiana 40th in the country and well below the U.S. average of 3.2%.

Once again, Louisiana trailed neighboring states, withAlabama (5.0%),Arkansas (5.4%),Mississippi (4.8%), andTexas (4.0%) all experiencing higher income growth. Slower income growth means Louisiana residents have less spending power and fewer financial opportunities than workers in faster-growing states.

Out-Migration Continues to Drain People and Wealth
Louisiana’s population grew slightly in 2024, adding 9,669 residents to 4.6 million. However, this increase masks a troubling trend: thousands of Louisianans continue to leave for better opportunities elsewhere.

The state experienced a net loss of 29,692 residents (-0.38%) due to domestic out-migration, ranking 7th worst in the nation. This trend of out-migration has serious long-term consequences, reducing the state’s workforce and eroding the tax base.

Even more concerning is the financial toll of this exodus. In 2022, Louisiana lost $882 million in adjusted gross income due to residents moving to states withlower taxes and better job opportunities. Over the last few years (2019–2022), this income loss has totaled $2.3 billion, making Louisiana one of the biggest losers of wealth in the country.

The Case for Pro-Growth Reform
The latest data show that Louisiana is falling behind. Without major reforms, the state will continue to struggle with stagnant job growth, low incomes, and ongoing outmigration. Policymakers must take decisive action to reverse these negative trends and make Louisiana more competitive and business-friendly.

Here’s what pro-growth reforms should include:

Tax relief: Reduce the tax burden on individuals and businesses to attract new investment and retain workers.
Regulatory reform: Cut excessive red tape that stifles job creation and entrepreneurship.
Workforce development: Improve education and job training programs to equip residents with in-demand skills.
Economic freedom: Reduce government spending and bureaucracy to create a more dynamic, opportunity-driven economy.
By removing barriers to growth, Louisiana can boost job creation, raise incomes, and retain its population rather than losing residents to more prosperous states. The time for action is now—Louisiana cannot afford to keep falling behind.

Read our Winter 2025 Quarterly Economic Report here.

​How can federal and state tax reform influence your budget and business? 

In this episode of the Let People Prosper Show, I interview Ryan Ellis, a tax policy expert and founder of the Center for a Free Economy. Ryan shares his insights on the complexities of tax reform, the impact of tariffs on economic growth, and why the real problem isn’t under-taxation but overspending. From the challenges of freelance taxes to corporate tax rates and the importance of deregulation, this conversation dives deep into what policymakers need to get right about fiscal policy. Whether you’re a business owner, policymaker, or just someone wanting a clearer picture of tax policy, this episode is for you!

For more insights, visit vanceginn.com and get even greater value with a subscription to my Substack newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com. 

(0:00) – Introduction to Tax Policy and Economic Growth
(2:49) – Freelance Taxes & Business Structure
 (5:55) – The Current State of Tax Policy
 (9:11) – Corporate Tax Rates & Small Business Challenges
 (12:02) – The Impact of Tariffs on Market Stability
 (14:54) – The Double Standard in Tax & Spending Debates
 (20:28) – The Fiscal Challenge: Overspending vs. Under-Taxation
 (23:31) – Why TCJA Must Be Made Permanent
 (27:57) – Tax Reform, Deregulation, and Economic Growth
 (32:51) – The Future of Conservatism & Fiscal Responsibilit

Originally posted to EconLib.

​From the dawn of civilization, societies have wrestled with the balance between order and liberty. Nations rise and fall based on how they manage power—whether through the centralized control of empires or the dispersed authority of free markets and individual rights.

The United States was founded on the radical idea that the government exists to secure the rights given by God, not to grant them. Yet, over time, this vision has been eroded by expanding bureaucracies, redistributive policies, and an entrenched political class that prioritizes power over principle. 

If the government is to be restored to its rightful place—serving rather than ruling—the federal, state, and local levels must be fundamentally restructured to prioritize liberty, responsibility, and human flourishing.

Milton Friedman argued that the government’s role should be limited to protecting life, liberty, and property—everything else is best left to markets and voluntary institutions. His work in Capitalism and Freedom laid out the case for a minimalist government that fosters an environment where individuals can pursue their own goals without interference. He warned that economic freedom is a prerequisite for political freedom—once the government takes control of the economy, it inevitably extends its reach into personal and political liberties.

Despite these warnings, the federal government has far exceeded its constitutional limits. 

Originally designed to be a government of enumerated powers, it now dictates everything from how businesses operate to how education is administered. The centralization of power has eroded the economic dynamism that made America prosperous. 

Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom warned that government planning inevitably leads to the loss of individual choice and freedom, even when implemented with good intentions. The only legitimate functions of the federal government are national defense, securing contracts and property rights, and ensuring a basic rule of law. Everything else belongs to states, local communities, and, most importantly, individuals.

A significant part of the government’s failure lies in its incentives, as explained by James Buchanan’s public choice theory. Buchanan shattered the myth that politicians are selfless public servants acting in the best interest of the people. 

Instead, he demonstrated that they behave like everyone else—acting in their self-interest, seeking re-election, and rewarding special interests that fund their campaigns. The bureaucratic class, in turn, benefits from expanding government power, creating an entrenched system that resists reform. This cycle of political self-preservation explains why spending continues to rise, why debt is out of control, and why special interest groups dominate policy.

This dynamic is evident in the way government welfare programs have expanded beyond their original purpose. Social welfare, which once relied on private charity, churches, and mutual aid societies, has been taken over by bureaucratic institutions that dehumanize and entrench dependency. 

Thomas Sowell, in Wealth, Poverty, and Politics, demonstrated that government intervention in welfare does more harm than good by disincentivizing work and weakening community responsibility. Politicians promise more benefits, knowing that dependency creates a voting bloc that ensures their re-election. Private charities and churches, by contrast, offer not just financial assistance but also moral and social support that helps individuals regain independence.

Taxation must be simplified and made transparent. The current system punishes productivity and distorts economic incentives by taxing income multiple times—when it is earned, invested, and transferred through inheritance. This system is inherently unjust, rewarding those who manipulate loopholes while burdening those who work hard and invest wisely. Friedman’s idea of a flat consumption tax remains the best alternative—taxing only final consumption rather than punishing savings and investment. Such a system would eliminate the IRS’s complexity, remove political favoritism in tax policy, and make taxation more transparent.

Perhaps the most insidious form of government control is its manipulation of money itself. The Federal Reserve was created to stabilize the economy but has instead fostered cycles of boom and bust through artificial credit expansion and reckless monetary policy. 

Larry White, an expert on free banking, has demonstrated that historically, competitive banking systems without central banks have led to more stable monetary environments than centrally controlled fiat currencies. Inflation, as Friedman showed, is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon—caused not by businesses or consumers but by governments expanding the money supply. 

A sound monetary system cannot be centrally planned but must be rooted in free banking, where private institutions compete to issue currency backed by tangible assets like gold and silver. Honest money holds the government accountable by preventing it from printing its way out of fiscal irresponsibility.

Federal regulations, another tool of government overreach, distort markets and restrict innovation. Free enterprise thrives when individuals are left to trade and produce without bureaucratic interference. Most regulations do not protect consumers but instead shield politically connected industries from competition. Licensing laws are particularly harmful, creating barriers to entry that disproportionately hurt lower-income workers who cannot afford costly training requirements.

Peter Boettke’s work in Austrian economics emphasizes that regulations are often the result of rent-seeking behavior—where established businesses use the government to protect themselves from competition rather than improve their products and services. A free society relies on contract enforcement and liability law rather than preemptive government intervention.

While federal overreach is the most visible threat to liberty, state and local governments also play a crucial role in either preserving or eroding freedom. 

States should serve as laboratories of competition, yet many have replicated Washington’s worst policies, imposing high taxes, burdensome regulations, and reckless spending. The proper role of the state government is to protect property rights, provide basic infrastructure, and maintain law and order with minimal interference in economic affairs. Spending should be strictly limited, tied to a max of population growth and inflation to prevent gradual government expansion.

At the local level, one of the most damaging taxes is the property tax, which effectively means no one can truly own a home outright. While states do not generally impose property taxes, local governments rely on them heavily due to excessive spending. Hayek emphasized that secure property rights are essential for economic stability and individual freedom. 

Homeownership should be a cornerstone of financial independence, yet property taxes function as an unrelenting rent paid to the government, making true ownership impossible. Local governments should phase out property taxes by capping spending and shifting to user-based fees where appropriate. This requires reining in school district spending, municipal pension costs, and bloated local bureaucracies that drive property taxes higher year after year.

Education policy is another area where state and local governments have failed to uphold individual rights. The government monopoly on schooling has led to declining quality, ideological indoctrination, and bureaucratic inefficiency. The only way to ensure quality education is through choice, where funding follows students rather than propping up failing systems. 

Sowell’s research on education highlights how competition among schools improves performance while centralized control fosters mediocrity. Universal education savings accounts would allow parents to select the best option for their children, whether it be public, private, charter, or homeschool.

The ultimate goal of governance should be to create an environment where people are free to make their own choices and take responsibility for their own lives. Human nature is deeply flawed, and no government can create a utopia. But history has shown that the freest societies are the most prosperous and that prosperity is not just material but moral. 

Sowell reminds us that cultures emphasizing personal responsibility and entrepreneurship outperform those that rely on government intervention. Societies thrive when individuals are allowed to exercise personal responsibility, build strong families, and engage in voluntary cooperation rather than coerced redistribution.

This vision is rooted not just in economic theory but in theology, psychology, and law. 

Theologically, human dignity is best preserved when individuals are free to act as moral agents rather than subjects of the state. Psychology teaches that people thrive when they have autonomy and purpose rather than dependence and entitlement. The rule of law, as articulated in the Western legal tradition, affirms that justice requires equal application rather than arbitrary government decree.

A truly free society does not require a powerful state but rather the opposite: a government so restrained that individuals, families, and communities can flourish without interference. The path to prosperity lies not in central planning but in individual liberty, responsibility, and the voluntary cooperation that has always driven progress. The task is not to reinvent government but to restore it to its rightful place—limited, accountable, and subservient to the people. 
​
Only then can we truly let people prosper.

​In this episode of the Let People Prosper Show, former U.S. Congressman Justin Amash joins the conversation to share his journey from his parents' immigrant experience to becoming one of the most principled voices for limited government and individual liberty in Washington, D.C. Amash discusses the importance of free markets, fighting corporate welfare, and the dangers of unchecked government power.

For more insights, visit vanceginn.com and get even greater value with a subscription to my Substack newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com. 

 (0:00) - Introduction to Liberty and Prosperity
(6:02) - Forming a Classical Liberal Worldview
(11:53) - The Journey to Congress and Political Awakening
(18:01) - Grassroots Campaigning and Challenging the Establishment
(23:44) - Fighting Corporate Welfare and Economic Distortions
(32:22) - The National Debt: A Growing Concern for America
(41:18) - Liberty vs. Control: The Role of Government

Originally posted to National Review. 

The November 2024 election delivered a mandate for change. Voters, grappling with persistent inflation, stagnant real wages, and a bloated federal government, were looking for new direction. The Trump administration began addressing these issues on day one with a flurry of executive orders and the pace has not eased up.

To truly let America prosper, Trump must advance a free market agenda rooted in limited government, fiscal discipline, and economic freedom.

As someone who worked in Trump’s first White House Office of Management and Budget and collaborated with national and state-level think tanks and experts across the country, I have seen firsthand what works — and what doesn’t. The best strategies are clear: cut government spending, simplify taxes, restore energy independence, expand free trade, overhaul immigration, and slash burdensome regulations. Together, these policies will unleash economic growth and create the conditions for a more prosperous future.

Many of today’s economic challenges lie in Washington’s out-of-control spending. Federal outlays exploded under Trump from $4.5 trillion in 2019 to over $6.5 trillion during the pandemic, and they remain near $7 trillion today. This unsustainable trajectory fuels inflation, crowds out private investment, and burdens future generations with crushing debt.

Trump must act immediately to reduce spending to pre-pandemic levels. Through executive orders, the administration can freeze unnecessary expenditures, claw back unspent Covid-19 funds, and direct agencies to identify and eliminate wasteful programs. He can also use the bully pulpit of the presidency to push Congress to make cuts proposed by the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) or veto legislation without those cuts.

Because Congress is invested with the power of the purse, it must take the lead by cutting government spending to at least $4.5 trillion and passing a reconciliation bill to impose spending caps tied to population growth and inflation. These sustainable budgeting practices would force policymakers to confront the true drivers of our debt crisis: “entitlement” programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which account for nearly 70 percent of federal spending. Without reform, these programs will bankrupt our economy and destroy any hope of future prosperity.

The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act delivered historic relief, but it only scratched the surface. Trump and Congress must make these tax cuts permanent and build on them with reforms that reduce complexity and support growth.

Reducing the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to at least 15 percent, as Trump has been advocating, would attract investment, create jobs, and ensure that the U.S. economy remains one of the most competitive in the world. Simplifying the individual income tax code by flattening rates, eliminating deductions and credits, and indexing capital gains for inflation would lower compliance costs and increase economic efficiency. Making full expensing permanent would encourage long-term business investment, while ending the state and local tax (SALT) deduction would ensure a more equitable tax system.

These reforms would boost economic activity and allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money — an essential step in restoring trust and optimism in the economy.

Energy independence was a hallmark of Trump’s first term — and is shaping up to be a hallmark of his second. Upon his return to the Oval Office, Trump immediately began the restoration of America’s energy dominance by declaring a national energy emergency. While this declaration may not have been necessary to achieve real reform, Trump has paved the way to reduce regulatory hurdles quickly. In order to mitigate the impending effects of Biden’s policies, the administration should reopen federal lands and offshore areas for oil and gas exploration, expedite permits for pipelines and refineries, and eliminate green-energy subsidies. These steps would help lower energy costs, create high-paying jobs, and strengthen national security. A free market energy policy will help stabilize prices and ensure the U.S. can meet its energy needs without relying on hostile foreign powers.

Trade policy, however, is an area in which Trump’s first term made only marginal progress, and there’s a clear danger that this may be lost if the administration continues weaponizing tariffs. Tariffs on intermediate goods and consumer products act as hidden taxes and cost the economy during the first administration at least $80 billion annually.

Rather than doubling down on protectionism and raising costs for Americans, Trump should instead prioritize expanding free trade agreements with allies in Europe and the Asia-Pacific. Removing tariffs will enhance market competition, lower consumer prices, and strengthen America’s position in the global economy. This approach would also allow the U.S. to apply strategic pressure on China to improve its flawed trade practices without resorting to tariffs on China or other countries that harm Americans or starting a trade war that hurts domestic manufacturers.

While securing the border is essential, immigration reform should go beyond enforcement. America needs a market-driven immigration system that aligns with labor market demands. Expanding H-1B visas for high-skilled workers in STEM fields and implementing a merit-based system for all immigrants would help address critical workforce shortages, boost innovation, and ensure the U.S. remains competitive globally while helping people improve their lives. At the same time, reforms should also create pathways for legal entry of unskilled workers to meet the demands of industries like agriculture and construction. A balanced, market-oriented approach to immigration will strengthen the economy while ensuring border security.

Deregulation was one of Trump’s greatest successes in his first term. However, much of this progress was reversed under Biden, as the regulation costs under his administration totaled over $1.8 trillion. Trump now favors expanding his previous “two-out, one-in” rule with a ten out for every one in. While he has started this process with a regulatory freeze, more should be done. Establishing a regulatory “budget”  that prioritizes the elimination of outdated and burdensome rules would be another move in the right direction. Removing superfluous or unduly burdensome regulations will help foster an environment in which businesses are more productive and thus more competitive domestically and internationally.

The November 2024 election wasn’t just about rejecting Bidenomics; it was about embracing a new vision for America’s economy — one more deeply rooted in the principles of free markets, limited government, and fiscal responsibility than before. Trump’s second term offers a historic opportunity to reset the country along those lines and set the stage for long-term prosperity. In some areas, most notably, perhaps, tariffs, Trump will have some different priorities. But that does not alter the fact that cutting spending, simplifying taxes, restoring energy independence, expanding, yes, free trade, reforming immigration, and slashing regulations are not just policy priorities — they are the building blocks of a competitive, dynamic economy that allows all Americans to thrive.
​
This historic opportunity must not be wasted. It’s time to let people prosper.

Originally published at The Daily Economy. 

Driven by progressive policies that stifled growth and burdened Americans with skyrocketing debt, elevated inflation, and economic malaise, has President Biden’s administration cemented its economic legacy as a failure? Despite promises of a “build back better” economy, the results are troubling, with policies rooted in overspending, overtaxing, and overregulating, pushing many Americans further from prosperity. 

Under President Biden, the national debt grew substantially, especially without a war or pandemic, surging past $36 trillion — a staggering $10 trillion increase since 2020. This debt explosion stemmed from massive spending initiatives, including the American Rescue Plan Act, the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, and many other reckless spending packages. Far from stimulating growth, this spending fueled inflation and undermined economic stability.

The Federal Reserve, charged with combating inflation, was forced to hike interest rates at a record pace, raising the federal funds rate from near zero to over five percent in just two years. These hikes directly responded to the monetary inflation crisis created by the Federal Reserve and exacerbated by Biden’s profligate fiscal policies. While interest rates have come down some over the last year, Americans face higher borrowing costs for homes, cars, and businesses, squeezing family budgets and discouraging investment.

Though there are signs of an economic recovery, real weekly earnings have declined by two percent since Biden took office as inflation outpaced wage growth for most of his presidency. This decline in purchasing power disproportionately hurts low- and middle-income households, the very groups progressive policies claim to champion.

Adding to the economic woes is a labor market hampered by a declining labor force participation rate. While the unemployment rate appears low at around four percent, this masks the reality that millions of Americans remain out of the workforce. Policies that disincentivize work — such as enhanced unemployment benefits, expanded welfare programs, and increased regulatory burdens on businesses — have created a perfect storm of lower productivity and higher dependency on government programs.

Regulatory overreach has further compounded economic challenges. According to the American Action Forum, the Biden administration issued $1.8 trillion in costly final rules, making it one of the most regulatory-heavy administrations in US history. These rules, which include onerous environmental regulations, expansive labor mandates, and restrictions on energy production, acted as a hidden tax on us. They drove driven up costs for businesses and consumers.

The administration’s war on artificial intelligence (AI) and corporate mergers were among the most damaging regulatory efforts. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) aggressively sought to stifle innovation and business growth under the guise of protecting competition through antitrust action. Instead of fostering a dynamic economy, these agencies created a climate of uncertainty that discourages investment in new technologies and impedes market efficiency. AI, which holds transformative potential for economic growth, was targeted with heavy-handed oversight that risks driving innovation overseas.

One of the most glaring examples of regulatory overreach was the Biden administration’s stance on mergers and acquisitions (M&A). The FTC and DOJ adopted a hostile posture toward M&A activity, essential for fostering business growth and increasing efficiency. By blocking mergers without sound economic justification, these agencies undermined businesses and sent a chilling message to investors. Such interference in private-sector decisions contradicted free-market capitalism and harmed the economy by stifling growth opportunities.

Similarly, the administration’s push for sweeping regulations on artificial intelligence threatened to derail a promising industry. Instead of embracing AI as a tool for economic advancement, the administration appeared intent on imposing burdensome compliance requirements that would discourage innovation and reduce America’s competitiveness on the global stage.

The path to reversing this economic malaise lies in rejecting the overspending, overtaxing, and overregulating policies that define Bidenomics. President Trump and Congress must prioritize fiscal discipline by cutting government spending to at least pre-pandemic levels and limiting it to sustainable levels. This should be done through a strict fiscal rule that caps expenditure growth at a maximum rate of population growth plus inflation. Spending less can alleviate the debt burden that threatens future generations.

Second, tax reform should focus on lowering tax rates, broadening the base, and simplifying the tax code to incentivize work, investment, and innovation. High taxes discourage productivity and entrepreneurship, while a pro-growth tax system can unlock the potential of American workers and businesses.

Third, regulatory reform is essential to restoring economic freedom and unleashing the full potential of the private sector. This includes reining in agencies like the FTC and DOJ, which have overstepped their bounds in pursuing ideological goals at the expense of economic progress. It also means adopting a balanced approach to AI governance that promotes innovation while addressing legitimate concerns without stifling progress.

The economic legacy of Bidenomics will be remembered as a cautionary tale of how progressive policies undermine prosperity. The administration’s decisions imposed significant costs on the American people, from an explosion in national debt to inflation, higher interest rates, regulatory overreach, and declining real wages. Voters chose a different direction with Trump.
​
The better approach is returning to the principles that have historically driven American prosperity: limited government, fiscal responsibility, and economic freedom. By embracing these principles, we can chart a path toward sustainable growth, higher living standards, and greater opportunities for all Americans.

​2025 brings new opportunities and challenges with President Trump’s return to office, a reshaped Congress, and bold initiatives from state legislatures. While President Trump’s leadership style often introduces volatility, the focus must remain on fostering economic freedom and prosperity through reduced government spending, lower taxes, and targeted deregulation. In this episode of the Let People Prosper Show, I’ll outline the top reforms we need at both federal and state levels—from universal school choice to eliminating property taxes—to ensure progress, even in the face of political uncertainty. Watch the episode on YouTube below, listen to it on Apple Podcast or Spotify, and visit my website for more information.

Originally published at South Carolina Policy Council with Sam Aaron. See this link for all figures.

​By Vance Ginn, PhD., and Sam Aaron

South Carolina has enjoyed significant economic success. With strong labor market growth and a favorable climate for business investment, the state continues to be one of the fastest-growing states in the nation. However, without a responsible approach to budgeting, this progress risks being overshadowed by excessive government spending. 

The S.C. Policy Council created the South Carolina Responsible Budget (SCRB) project to encourage lawmakers to adopt responsible spending restraints. This report highlights why state legislators must prioritize fiscal discipline through a responsible budgeting framework that aligns spending growth with population growth and inflation. Such a policy will enable long-term prosperity and provide room for meaningful relief – specifically, the eventual elimination of personal income taxes.

What is a Responsible Budget
A responsible budget is a budgeting model that limits appropriations based on population growth plus inflation. This approach accounts for these two metrics while considering economies of scale, recognizing that a simple increase in population does not always require a proportional increase in spending.

The SCRB does not specify how general funds should be allocated. Instead, it sets a recommended limit on the total amount that should be appropriated, ensuring that any necessary spending growth remains affordable.

Last year, South Carolina accelerated the income tax cuts passed in 2022, simplifying and lowering personal income taxes (as supported by SCPC). However, if the state is serious about eliminating income taxes, it must follow a model that restrains spending. The SCRB is the perfect tool for this purpose.

Current Labor Market and Economic Standing
South Carolina’s labor market remains strong but faces challenges in maintaining its competitive edge. As of September 2024:

• Civilian Labor Force: 2.53 million, an increase of approximately 43,000 from April 2024. This growth reflects South Carolina's ability to attract workers and underscores the need for policies supporting continued job creation. (The civilian labor force is the total number of employed plus unemployed persons.)
• Unemployment Rate: Rising to 4.5% from 3.2% in April 2024, highlighting the importance of job growth through fiscal responsibility and business-friendly policies.
• Non-farm Employment: Non-farm jobs have increased by 25,900 since April, with notable growth in the construction (8%) and information services (6.6%) sectors. The construction industry is critical, especially as South Carolina experiences significant population growth and urban development.

​
South Carolina’s real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew by 4.5% annually in Q2 2024, outperforming the national average of 3.0%, while personal income rose by 6.9% year-over-year, the fastest in the country. 
These metrics reflect a healthy economy; however, fiscal mismanagement could put this progress at risk. Excessive spending, as seen in recent budgets, jeopardizes long-term growth and diminishes the state’s ability to respond to future economic challenges.

SC Appropriations vs. Responsible Budget
South Carolina’s general fund appropriations have consistently exceeded sustainable limits, as shown in Figure 1. Over the last decade, the state has failed to align spending with population growth and inflation, opting for rapid budget expansion. This trend threatens the state’s fiscal foundation.

Key Takeaways

1. Had South Carolina followed the SCRB, the FY25 budget would have been $2.9 billion smaller than the actual budget. This means nearly $3 billion could have remained in taxpayer hands. The cumulative annual budget differences amount to an astonishing $14.86 billion, funds that could have remained with taxpayers under the SCRB framework.
2. Actual appropriations increased by over 103% from FY13 to FY25, while a responsible approach based on the rate of population growth plus inflation would have limited growth to nearly 56%. These substantial, scarce taxpayer resources could have been used for tax relief. 
3. The gap between actual and SCRB-limited appropriations is getting larger. Actual FY25 appropriations ($12.4 billion) are 30.5% higher than SCRB-limited appropriations ($9.5 billion) for the same year, whereas actual appropriations exceeded SCRB-limited appropriations by 27.4% for FY23.

Spending Growth vs. Inflation and Population
Such uncontrolled spending burdens taxpayers and reduces the state’s ability to maintain a competitive tax environment. Without reform, South Carolina risks falling behind neighboring states like North Carolina, which has adopted more disciplined budgeting practices.

Setting a Responsible Budget Limit
South Carolina must adopt the SCRB framework for fiscal year 2026, which starts July 1 this year,  to curb excessive growth. Under this model:

• The FY 2026 SCRB limit is $12.96 billion, an increase of 4.56% based on estimated population growth of 1.59% and an index inflation rate of 2.97% in 2024 over the FY 2025 base of $12.40 billion (Figure 3). Staying below this threshold will ensure that spending aligns with taxpayer affordability.

By adhering to this limit, South Carolina can establish a fiscal surplus that supports tax reductions, particularly the acceleration of personal income tax cuts. The South Carolina Policy Council's data-driven recommendations support this approach.

The Case for Surplus Triggers
South Carolina’s current revenue triggers for tax reductions rely on meeting specific revenue growth thresholds. While effective in the short term, these triggers often delay relief during economic uncertainty. Conversely, surplus triggers directly tie tax cuts to actual budget surpluses, ensuring that excess revenue is returned to taxpayers without incentivizing unnecessary government growth.

States like North Carolina have successfully implemented revenue-triggered tax cuts, reducing their income tax rate to 2.49% by 2030. South Carolina should follow this direction but instead, use the surplus buydown that allocates surplus funds above a strict spending limit to:

• Immediately reduce the top income tax rate to 6%.
• Develop a phased plan to eliminate personal income taxes.

Surplus triggers, combined with spending limits, create a disciplined framework for reducing and eliminating personal income taxes based on actual fiscal health. This approach ensures responsible, lasting tax relief while fostering economic growth and long-term competitiveness.

Comparisons with Nearby States
South Carolina’s tax system ranks 33rd overall in the Tax Foundation’s 2025 State Tax Competitiveness Index. While the state boasts a competitive corporate tax rate of 5%, its individual income tax system and reliance on property and sales taxes hinder its economic standing:

• Nearby States:
  • North Carolina: Flat individual income tax rate of 4.25% (heading to 2.49%).
  • Georgia: Lower overall tax burden and competitive regulatory environment.
  • Tennessee: Zero state income taxes ranking 8th on the Tax Foundation's Index.
  • Florida: Zero state income taxes ranking 4th on the Tax Foundation's Index.

South Carolina’s reliance on a split-roll property tax system and capital stock taxes penalizes investment and business growth. The state’s split roll property tax system imposes school taxes on commercial and industrial properties while exempting residential properties. This policy increases costs for businesses and renters, creating an uneven tax burden that disadvantages job creators and those who lease rather than own homes. Addressing these structural issues is critical to ensuring South Carolina remains competitive in attracting jobs and businesses. 

Recommendations for Reform
To secure South Carolina’s fiscal future, legislators should adopt the following reforms:

1. Cap Spending Growth: Limit annual state appropriations to a maximum of the rate of population growth plus inflation, ensuring the government does not outpace the economy. This spending limit should be applied to local governments as well like Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. (TABOR)
2. Implement Surplus Triggers: Use surplus revenue for immediate tax relief, prioritizing income tax cuts.
3. Zero-Based Budgeting: Require state agencies to justify all expenditures annually, eliminating wasteful spending. (SCPC)
4. Eliminate Income Taxes: Gradually phase out the state income tax, allowing South Carolina to compete with no-tax states for talent and investment.

Conclusion
South Carolina’s economic growth and rising revenues present an opportunity to implement transformative fiscal policies. The state can ensure long-term prosperity while maintaining its competitive edge by adhering to a responsible budget framework and prioritizing tax relief. Legislators must decisively curb overspending and return resources to taxpayers, ensuring South Carolina remains a beacon of opportunity.

​As 2024 ends, let’s reflect on a year filled with significant progress and challenges. From the election results to bold policy initiatives and much-needed conversations about sound money and inflation, this year has highlighted the ongoing need for fiscal conservatism and economic freedom. Here’s an overview of the year’s biggest stories, key wins, and essential reads to carry us into 2025. 

Watch the episode on YouTube below, listen to it on Apple Podcast or Spotify, and visit my website for more information.

​Originally published by American Spectator with Dr. Deane Waldman.

The murder of Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was a heinous crime allegedly done by Luigi Mangione out of rage against the machine. Presumably, his target was someone who profits from our broken healthcare “machine” or system.

President Obama was overt in Washington’s theft of taxpayer dollars intended to pay for care.

Public frustration with, anger, and even “hatred” toward healthcare may seem justified based on facts, but violence is never the answer. Healthcare seems to turn hard-earned taxpayer dollars into massive health industry profits and wasteful bureaucratic spending. And what does the public get? Questionable insurance policies with promises of care that never materialize, drugs that don’t work, and physicians who spend most of an appointment looking at a computer screen rather than talking with patients.

Last year, the U.S. spent $4.8 trillion on its healthcare system, 17.5 percent of our GDP and more than the entire GDP of Japan. American families spent $31,065, on average, on healthcare costs in 2023, of which 83 percent went to insurance companies. (READ MORE: Federal Bureaucracy Is Biggest Healthcare Rent-Seeker)

Insurance is one of the most profitable industries in the country, so Mr. Thompson may have seemed a symbol of the evils of capitalism against which Mr. Mangione railed in court. Insurance companies typically generate profits by not paying for medical care. They use a 3-D strategy — delay, defer, deny — which was dramatized in the 1997 movie, “Rainmaker,” where a greedy insurance executive denied a claim for payment for the treatment of a cancer patient, claiming the therapy was experimental and therefore not covered. The young man died despite having a potentially treatable condition.

People holding a health insurance policy have been led to believe they will receive timely care. Yet the healthcare machine assigns them a provider. A pharmacy benefits manager chooses their medications. With insurance, the maximum average wait time to see a primary care physician in a mid-sized city is 132 days. Some patients with either Medicaid or Tricare insurance wait so long for care, they die while waiting.

Thus, while nothing exonerates the murder of another person, public outrage seems justified.

Federal Bureaucracy Impedes Care
Moreover, private insurance is not the biggest culprit in taking our money and denying us care. That trophy goes to Washington.

Just recently, Elon Musk, co-leader with Vivek Ramaswamy of the non-governmental DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency), expressed shock at the “skyrocketing administrative costs” of the federal healthcare bureaucracy. He refers to healthcare spending that provides no care.

The word bureaucracy is too insignificant to express all the costly activities between Washington passing a healthcare law and the impact on Americans. The process invariably generates BARRCOME -- bureaucracy, administration, rules, regulations, compliance, oversight, mandates, and enforcement. One look at the organizational chart of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) proves how convoluted, complex, confusing, and costly is Washington-controlled healthcare.

Estimates of the cost of BARRCOME range from 31 percent to more than 50 percent of U.S. healthcare spending. Between 1970 and 2010, when the number of physicians doubled, healthcare bureaucrats increased by more than 3,000 percent! No wonder a businessman like Musk would be appalled at an industry where half the money expended produces no value for consumers.

In 2023, Americans paid $4.8 trillion for “healthcare.” Washington took possibly $2.4 trillion of it and paid for BARRCOME workers, not care providers.

President Obama was overt in Washington’s theft of taxpayer dollars intended to pay for care. To defray the cost of ACA BARRCOME, former President Obama and Congress redistributed nearly $800 billion from expected spending on Medicare even as revenue increased, thereby extending the date of insolvency for the program.

There is good reason for Americans’ rage against the healthcare machine. But violence, including murder, cannot be justified. While insurance can be a target for change, the bigger, more appropriate offender is federal spending and the resulting bloated bureaucracy. (READ MORE: Harris’ Healthcare Destroys Health CARE)

Hopefully, the DOGE will use deregulation, spending cuts, and government employment termination rather than life termination to improve patient care at a lower cost. Musk and Ramaswamy have set a goal of cutting $2 trillion from the federal budget. Reducing healthcare BARRCOME would accomplish that task while providing more dollar-efficient, more accessible, and affordable health care.

In this compelling episode of The Let People Prosper Show, Judy Shelton and I discuss her latest book, Good as Gold: How to Unleash the Power of Sound Money. We dive into the state of capitalism, the inefficiencies of government bureaucracy, and the vital role of fiscal and monetary policy in driving sustainable economic growth. From historical lessons like the peso crisis and Bretton Woods to the promise of gold and cryptocurrencies, the discussion provides a roadmap for reclaiming economic stability and fostering global prosperity. 

Join us as we explore actionable steps to reduce government overspending, enhance monetary stability, and inspire a renewed commitment to free-market principles worldwide.​

​Welcome to This Week’s Economy podcast! In this episode, we explore the Federal Reserve’s interest rate decision, President-elect Trump’s ambitious early agenda, the potential fallout from a looming TikTok ban, and new state tax competitiveness rankings. Join me as I unpack these pivotal developments, their economic implications, and the actions needed to secure prosperity for all Americans. Watch the episode on YouTube below, listen to it on Apple Podcast or Spotify, and visit my website for more information.

Originally published at Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation. 

​Executive Summary
Iowa’s steadfast commitment to conservative budgeting demonstrates how fiscally responsible governance benefits all, fostering an environment of economic prosperity and opportunity. By prioritizing disciplined spending over government expansion, Governor Kim Reynolds and the state legislature have positioned Iowa as a national leader in fiscal responsibility.

The FY 2026 Conservative Iowa Budget, capped at $9.15 billion with a 2.7% growth rate, exemplifies this commitment to sustainable budgeting. Key elements of Iowa’s approach include aligning spending growth with population growth and inflation, ensuring fiscal stability while avoiding unnecessary tax burdens on residents.

Key Highlights:

1. Fiscal Discipline:
   Iowa’s budgeting model restricts spending growth to the combined rate of population growth and inflation, providing a sustainable framework that limits government expansion and prioritizes taxpayer interests.
2. Tax Reforms and Economic Growth:
   Iowa’s pro-growth tax reforms, including a transition to a 3.8% flat income tax in 2025 and the elimination of the inheritance tax, have reduced financial burdens on families and businesses. These changes enhance the state’s economic competitiveness.
3. Financial Strength and Surpluses:
   Conservative budgeting has resulted in consistent surpluses, fully funded reserves, and a Taxpayer Relief Fund projected to reach $4 billion by FY 2026. These financial resources enable Iowa to weather economic uncertainties and provide sustainable tax relief.
4. Sustainability through Spending Limits:
   Iowa’s model prevents abrupt government expansions and potential fiscal crises by maintaining spending limits tied to population growth and inflation, ensuring fiscal sustainability without overburdening taxpayers.
5. Path to Further Tax Relief:
   Surpluses have paved the way for significant tax cuts, with policymakers working toward eliminating income taxes. Proposed strategies include surplus triggers, strengthened spending limits, and leveraging the Taxpayer Relief Fund for sustained reductions.
6. Formalizing Fiscal Restraints:
   Advocating for constitutional spending caps, Iowa aims to institutionalize its conservative budgeting model, ensuring long-term fiscal discipline and protecting taxpayer interests.

Iowa’s FY 2026 Conservative Budget reflects a disciplined approach to governance that balances fiscal responsibility with economic growth. By aligning budget growth with taxpayer capacity and prioritizing sustainable tax policies, Iowa has established itself as a model for other states.

Introduction
Through a steadfast commitment to conservative budgeting, Iowa has shown that fiscally responsible government benefits all, creating an economic environment where prosperity and opportunity thrive.

Conservative budgeting requires the discipline to say “no” to the many competing demands for government funding—a challenging but essential approach to ensuring long-term fiscal health. Governor Kim Reynolds and the state legislature have championed this approach in Iowa, prioritizing responsible spending growth over government expansion.

This commitment to fiscal restraint has established Iowa as a national leader in conservative budgeting, resulting in a robust fiscal foundation, significant tax cuts, and substantial budget surpluses. Maintaining this conservative approach is crucial as Iowa approaches the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 budget.

Iowa’s Success in Conservative Budgeting and Tax Reform
Governor Reynolds’s dedication to conservative budgeting and pro-growth tax reform has received national recognition.

The Cato Institute’s 2024 Fiscal Policy Report Card ranked her as the most fiscally conservative governor in the nation, highlighting her prudent budgeting choices and commitment to reducing tax burdens. Similarly, the Tax Foundation awarded her the Distinguished Service Award for her tax reforms, which have made Iowa’s economic landscape more competitive and inviting for businesses and individuals.

According to the Tax Foundation’s 2025 State Competitiveness Index, Iowa’s tax system now ranks 20th overall, a marked improvement reflecting recent pro-growth reforms. These changes include lowering income tax rates, eliminating the alternative minimum tax, removing federal deductibility, and beginning the state’s inheritance tax phaseout. In 2025, Iowa will have a single-rate (3.8 percent) income tax structure, making it even more competitive.

These tax changes might seem like abstract policies, but for everyday Iowans, they mean that more of their hard-earned income stays in their pockets. For example, moving to a flat tax allows everyone to pay the same rate, simplifying the system and making tax bills more predictable. This reform especially benefits small business owners and families who can now budget more confidently. Iowa’s transition from an inheritance tax also reduces burdens on family-owned businesses and farms, helping them remain in the family rather than being sold to cover tax expenses.

Building and Sustaining Iowa’s Fiscal Strength
Iowa’s conservative budgeting approach has strengthened the state’s fiscal foundation, with consistent budget surpluses, fully funded reserves, and a growing Taxpayer Relief Fund. In FY 2024, Iowa posted a budget surplus of $2.05 billion, projected to increase to $2.25 billion in FY 2025. These surpluses provide Iowa with a financial cushion, allowing the state to manage future uncertainties without resorting to sudden tax hikes or service cuts.

The Cash Reserve Fund and Economic Emergency Fund, Iowa’s primary reserve accounts, are filled to their statutory maximums, with a combined balance of nearly $962 million. This conservative approach to savings is akin to a family setting aside an emergency fund, ensuring financial stability even in times of crisis. Furthermore, Iowa’s Taxpayer Relief Fund, currently holding $3.7 billion and projected to grow to $4 billion by FY 2026, is a dedicated resource for reducing tax burdens on Iowans. This fund’s growth ensures that tax cuts can be sustained, benefiting Iowa families and small businesses directly by putting money back into the economy. While these funds are important in sustaining tax relief, too much money in the hands of the government means it is overtaxing the private sector and reducing economic growth and opportunity. The government should adopt even more conservative budgeting practices than the private sector does, as it is managing public funds rather than its own money, and therefore should prioritize spending less.

Using Population Growth Plus Inflation as a Spending Benchmark
Iowa’s conservative budgeting model limits General Fund spending growth to the rate of population growth plus inflation. This approach ensures that spending stays in line with the average taxpayer’s financial capacity, reflecting the state’s economic conditions and preventing abrupt expansions that could create future fiscal challenges.  By using this benchmark, Iowa keeps government growth aligned with what the average taxpayer can realistically support. Think of it like maintaining a household budget: if your income only increases by a small percentage each year, it would be unsustainable to double your spending.

Visualizing Iowa’s Conservative Budget Strategy
The following charts offer a clear picture of Iowa’s conservative budgeting. They show how the state has maintained fiscal discipline and aligned spending growth with population growth plus inflation in recent years.
​
Figure 1 compares Iowa’s actual General Fund budget with different benchmarks, including a statutory spending limit and the proposed cap from Senate Joint Resolution 9 (SJR 9) in 2017. The proposed cap, which would have limited growth to 99% of estimated revenue or capped it at 4% above the previous year, ultimately did not pass. However, SJR 9 illustrates an important effort to restrain spending and maintain accountability. A better limitation that more closely resembles the budget passed in recent years and better matches the average taxpayer’s ability to pay for the budget is population growth plus inflation.

​Actual General Fund appropriations increased well below the statutory spending limit for most of the period. The budget would have increased slightly less in 2023 and 2024 under  SJR 9 than the statutory spending limit would provide, but the amount under SJR 9 would have been substantially too high. However, a spending limit based on the rate of population growth plus inflation during the previous calendar year before a legislative session would suggest $2.9 billion in cumulative overspending, resulting in less money in people’s pockets. This overspending means an average family of four spends $3,500 more on taxes and fees than they otherwise should be.
But this overspending was not for the entire period. Figure 2 illustrates the average annual growth of General Fund appropriations compared with the combined rate of population growth and inflation from 2013 to 2025. Since 2019, Iowa’s budget growth has consistently been less than this benchmark, ensuring that spending remains sustainable. This approach reflects the everyday budgeting principle of living within one’s means, balancing the budget without sacrificing essential needs.

​For FY 2026, Figure 3 shows that the Conservative Iowa Budget is set at $9.15 billion, representing a 2.7% growth rate, with state population growth up by 0.2% to 3,214,000 and chained consumer price index (CPI) inflation of 2.5% for 2024. By setting this limit, Iowa remains committed to aligning budget growth with taxpayers’ capacity, protecting against unchecked expansion (Iowa Budget Report FY 2026). This conservative threshold allows Iowa to continue operating on a strong fiscal foundation while keeping more money in the pockets of residents.

​These charts highlight Iowa’s disciplined budget strategy and demonstrate the benefits of adhering to conservative principles for fiscal stability.

Path to Tax Relief: Using Surpluses to Empower Iowans and Future Tax Relief
As a result of conservative budgeting, Iowa policymakers have been able to make historic income tax reductions. The Tax Foundation’s State Tax Competitiveness Index ranks Iowa 20th in the nation, a substantial improvement. Iowa was once ranked as one of the worst tax climates in the country, regularly residing in the bottom ten states and, in 2020, was ranked 44th in the Tax Foundation’s Index. Iowa’s tax climate is becoming more competitive due to pro-growth tax reforms made possible only by conservative budgeting.

Iowa’s budget surpluses have enabled the state to pursue significant tax relief initiatives. Moving toward a 3.8% flat income tax by 2025, Iowa is positioned to reduce this rate further, potentially eliminating the income tax soon. This path to tax relief is more than just numbers on a page; it translates to more financial freedom for Iowans. For a family, this could mean extra monthly money for essentials or savings for the future without paying an ever-increasing share to the government.

Although legislators may not seek to reduce the income tax during the 2025 legislative session, policymakers should stay active. Several policy options could be considered to ensure that the 3.8 percent flat tax continues to be lowered. Some of these include:

• Establishing a clear surplus trigger. Several states have used revenue triggers to lower income tax rates. North Carolina is one example. A revenue trigger can help lower rates but focuses on the wrong problem. The problem with the government is too much spending, so a surplus trigger incentivizes less spending under a strong spending limit while providing sustainable tax relief.
• Strengthening the state spending limitation: With a stronger state spending limit that could be based on population plus inflation or another metric such as limiting spending to 2.5 percent per budget year would allow for surplus dollars to be directed toward further tax rate reduction.
• Taxpayer Relief Fund: Iowa already has the Taxpayer Relief Fund, which was created for income tax relief. Dollars placed into the Fund should be constitutionally protected to ensure they are not “raided” for another purpose. The Taxpayer Relief Fund could be used to lower the income tax rate until it is eliminated. The House and Senate Ways & Means Committee chairs offered this proposal during the last legislative session.

These are just three potential policy options that policymakers could consider ensuring that the income tax rate continues to be lowered and eventually eliminated. During the last legislative session, Iowa Senator Jason Shultz offered policymakers a good reminder when he stated: “Both Republicans and Democrats need to realize that tax policy is affected by spending. And when you start seeing spending creeping up for annual, year after year, new good ideas, you can’t have good tax policy.”

By directing surplus revenue to tax relief instead of new government programs, Iowa’s approach respects the principle that taxpayers—not the government—should decide how to spend their earnings. This responsible budget approach keeps more money circulating in the local economy, promoting growth and empowering families and businesses.

Formalizing Spending Restraints
While Iowa’s conservative budgeting model has succeeded through voluntary adherence, formalizing a spending cap tied to a maximum of the rate of population growth plus inflation for state and local spending in the state constitution could secure these gains for future generations. Other states, like Texas and Colorado, have adopted similar limits with positive results, limiting government growth and protecting taxpayer interests.

A formal spending cap would function as a financial safeguard, ensuring that Iowa’s government lives within its means, similar to how a family might cap discretionary spending to avoid debt. Research from the Independence Institute underscores the importance of such fiscal restraints, showing that they can protect taxpayers and bolster state economies. For Iowa, adopting a constitutional spending cap would prevent future administrations from eroding the gains achieved through conservative budgeting and provide a steady check against excessive growth.

Conclusion: Iowa as a Model of Conservative Fiscal Responsibility
Iowa’s commitment to conservative budgeting has established it as a national leader in economic freedom and fiscal responsibility. Governor Reynolds has demonstrated the importance of not just conservative budgeting but also reforming government by reducing its size and scope. Through two major government reforms and reorganization laws, Governor Reynolds is working to reduce the influence the government has on taxpayers.

Going forward, policymakers should continue to build upon the governor’s efforts to reform state government. This includes improving legislative oversight and ensuring taxpayer dollars are not being wasted. Other beneficial steps to budget reforms include priority-based budgeting, independent efficiency audits, and routine evaluation of programs by legislative committees to see which ones should stay or go.

 Iowa has demonstrated that responsible budgeting benefits everyone by aligning budget growth with population and inflation, maintaining consistent surpluses, and dedicating funds to tax relief. The FY 2026 Conservative Iowa Budget, capped at $9.15 billion with a conservative 2.7% growth rate, reflects the state’s ongoing dedication to disciplined budgeting.

Iowa’s success is a blueprint for balancing fiscal responsibility with economic growth for other states facing budget challenges. By prioritizing taxpayer interests and limiting government expansion, Iowa has created an environment where economic freedom and opportunity can flourish.

References

• Americans for Tax Reform. “Sustainable Budget Project.” https://atr.org/budgetproject/
• Ginn, Vance. “Sustainable State Budgets Across the U.S.” https://www.vanceginn.com/letpeopleprosper/responsible-state-budgets-across-the-us
• Independence Institute. “Sustainable Colorado Budget to Help Eliminate State Income Taxes.” https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/IP-5-2023_d.pdf
• Iowa Legislative Services Agency. “Iowa Budget Report FY 2025.” https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/FR/1456458.pdf
• Iowa Legislative Services Agency. “Iowa Budget Report FY 2026.” https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/BL/1462973.pdf
• Iowa Senate Joint Resolution 9. “Senate Joint Resolution 9 (SJR 9) Text.” https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=87&ba=SJR%209
• FEE. “Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights Should Be a Model for the Nation.” https://fee.org/articles/colorado-s-taxpayer-bill-of-rights-should-be-a-model-for-the-nation/
• Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation. “The 2025 Conservative Iowa Budget: A Plan for Continued Progress.” https://itrfoundation.org/the-2025-conservative-iowa-budget-a-plan-for-continued-progress/
• Tax Foundation. “2025 State Competitiveness Index: Iowa.” https://taxfoundation.org/statetaxindex/states/iowa/​

​In January, many state legislatures will begin their sessions. In this special edition of This Week’s Economy show, I share state and local policies that will equip state leaders to help boost their economies and help their citizens prosper. I will outline three solutions that I think have the greatest capacity to let people prosper where they reside. As a thank you, Substack subscribers can download my complimentary Let People Prosper Policy Agenda. Watch this week’s episode on YouTube below, listen to it on Apple Podcast or Spotify, and visit my website for more information.

​In this episode of the Let People Prosper Show, Rick Graber, president and CEO of the Bradley Foundation, shares insights into the Foundation’s work promoting free-market principles, individual liberty, and a strong civil society. Graber reflects on the impact of his diverse career, the importance of philanthropy in fostering these values, and his optimism for America’s future rooted in its unique opportunities.

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.

(0:00) – Introduction to the Bradley Foundation and Mission
(4:53) – Rick Graber’s Career Journey and Mentorship
(10:01) – Role of Free Markets and Individual Liberty
(14:51) – Staying True to Founding Principles
(20:03) – Philanthropy’s Role in Society
(25:11) – Addressing Immigration and Trade
(30:00) – Celebrating American Opportunity and Civil Society