Originally published on Substack.

President Trump’s State of the Union speech of a record 108 minutes last night had something Washington too often forgets: confidence.
​
After years of Americans being told to lower expectations, it was refreshing to hear a president speak as if this country can still build big things, lead the world, and win the future.

That tone matters. Americans are tired of being scolded by technocrats while their bills climb. They want to hear that the country is capable again.

But here’s the hard truth: a confident tone is not a governing strategy.

If the goal is rising living standards, the next step has to be less government interference, not new versions of it.

Too much of what passes for “action” in Washington is still about pulling levers, picking winners, adding controls, and expanding federal “help” that quietly raises prices and limits choice.

Classical liberals, like me, have warned about this for a reason: the levers don’t make people freer. They make people dependent.

The best version of this presidency—and the best version of America—is a future-first agenda with one true north star: let people prosper.

If you want the whole framework in one place, start with my policy guide.

Keep America leading on innovation

The speech signaled that the United States should stay on offense in innovation, especially on AI.

That is the right instinct. America doesn’t win by copying Europe’s regulatory mindset.

We win by letting entrepreneurs scale, compete, and deliver products that make life better and cheaper. That consumer-driven approach is why I’ve pushed an innovation-first approach instead of politicized crackdowns on success.

Call out broken systems—but fix them the market way

It’s also good to acknowledge what voters already know: the economy isn’t “rigged by accident.”

Too many industries are distorted by government-created barriers and entrenched middlemen.

Calling problems out is useful. The danger is when the “fix” becomes another layer of bureaucracy that never goes away. Government rarely shrinks itself. It multiplies.

What was missing: the future-first, classical liberal playbook

1) Spending discipline should be the opening line, not an afterthought

Washington cannot keep running up massive tabs and pretend it isn’t part of the cost-of-living squeeze.

Excessive spending distorts markets, pushes up borrowing, raises interest costs, and entrenches inflation expectations. It also turns every other priority into a gimmick fight because lawmakers refuse to address the root.

This is why the real threat is not that Americans keep too much of their own money. The real threat is that government spends too much of everyone’s money.

That’s the core point behind spending-driven debt and why sustainable budgeting needs to be the baseline.

If you want a practical model, look at how fiscal guardrails work in the states and why they matter for stability.

I’ve laid that out in sustainable budgeting and in the case for a serious federal reset like the responsible budget.

A future SOTU should say this plainly: we will cut and cap federal spending growth, eliminate budget gimmicks, and make prosperity possible again by letting the private economy breathe.

2) Tariffs are taxes—even when they sound tough

A future-first agenda doesn’t tax Americans through tariffs and call it strategy. Tariffs are taxes. Taxes raise prices. They hit families at checkout and hit producers through higher input costs. Then politicians act shocked when prices rise and growth slows.

If the goal is abundance, you don’t choke supply chains with border taxes. You cut domestic barriers to production. That’s why I keep hammering the simplest truth in economics: tariffs raise costs.

I’ve also warned how tariff escalations create uncertainty and squeeze working households in trade-war reality and why politicians keep failing the basics of Econ 101.

A pro-worker trade policy is not “tax the things you buy.” It’s “make it easier to produce here”—permitting reform, energy abundance, lower regulatory costs, and predictable rules.

3) Tax cuts should be broad, neutral, and sustainable—not swapped for hidden taxes

Broad-based income and corporate tax cuts can lift work, investment, and wages. The key is broad-based. Targeted carveouts and special breaks aren’t prosperity. They’re politics.

But even good tax cuts fail when spending restraint is absent.

If Washington refuses to control spending, tax cuts become temporary and debt becomes permanent. That’s why tax reform without restraint isn’t reform—it’s a short-lived headline.

And no, tax cuts should not be “paid for” with higher tariffs. That’s not relief.

A serious future SOTU would commit to a simple order of operations:

• cut and cap spending growth first,
• then deliver broad-based tax relief,
• and keep the base broad so everyone wins.

4) Healthcare reform should empower patients, not import price controls

Healthcare is expensive because patients aren’t treated like customers. Prices are hidden, incentives are distorted, and middlemen dominate the rails.

That’s why the continued attraction to “Most Favored Nation” drug pricing is a red flag.

MFN is price control—importing foreign government benchmarks into U.S. pricing.

Price controls may look like “savings” on paper, but the real cost shows up later as weaker incentives to innovate, slower launches, fewer trials, and less access over time.

I’ve been direct about the damage from MFN price-setting.

If the goal is to expand access and lower costs, we should push competition, transparency, faster approvals, and direct purchasing models that increase consumer choice—not bureaucratic formulas that reduce the incentive to develop tomorrow’s cures.

The same principle applies to PBMs: the middleman problem is real, but bans and mandates can backfire if incentives stay broken.

That’s why I’ve argued that PBM bans backfire and why reforms should focus on restoring market pressure, not replacing one distortion with another.

5) Housing needs supply—not scapegoats, caps, or punishment taxes

Housing may be the clearest example of the difference between serious policy and political theater.

Housing is expensive because we didn’t build enough for decades. Zoning limits, permitting delays, and process abuse restrict supply. Then politicians look for villains instead of looking in the mirror.

Restricting institutional investors won’t build a single home. Punitive taxes and ownership caps shrink rental options, discourage rehab, and risk rushed sell-offs that displace renters and destabilize neighborhoods.

The real solution is to build, build, build: streamline permitting, reduce zoning barriers, speed up approvals, and stop turning housing into a legal obstacle course.

My market-first framework is in expanding supply.

And the truly “future” housing reform Washington avoids is unwinding federal distortions that socialize risk and politicize credit.

That includes finally privatizing the mortgage giants so housing finance is driven by market signals rather than permanent federal dominance.

6) Sound money means respecting price signals—including interest rates

Interest rates are prices. Artificially forcing them down is how you set up the next bust.

When policymakers manipulate the price of credit, they create malinvestment, bubbles, and painful corrections later.

I’ve written about the Fed’s role in boom-and-bust dynamics and the distortions created by monetary manipulation—how easy money changes investment patterns before reality catches up.

If you want the clearest articulation of the mechanism, see the argument about the Fed’s boom-bust cycles and why inflation pessimism is driven by policy failure, not public “misunderstanding,” in my work on inflation and rate hikes.

A future SOTU should commit to sound money principles and fiscal restraint so rates are not constantly being used as a political pressure valve.

7) Family policy should build independence, not dependency

Washington loves programs that sound pro-family and end up being pro-bureaucracy. “Accounts,” credits, subsidies, and new federal benefit pipelines might poll well, but they often expand dependency and deepen the tax-and-transfer state.
A better family agenda is pro-growth: higher real wages through productivity, lower prices through competition, and more opportunity through less red tape.

That’s why I’ve pushed back on federal social engineering through the tax code and gimmicks that avoid the spending problem.

My conversation on the risk of Washington-designed “Trump accounts” is captured in fiscal reality.

The next SOTU I want to hear: a true north star “Let People Prosper” address

If I could write next year’s State of the Union for a president who wants a booming America, it would be a forward-looking abundance agenda—not a nostalgia tour, not a grievance list, not a government expansion dressed up as toughness.

Here is what I would want to hear—policy by policy—built around a simple principle: the federal government should stop making life harder and start getting out of the way.

1) A binding commitment to spending cuts and limits

Not “we’ll find savings.” Not “we’ll cut waste.”

A real commitment to spending cuts and future growth limits that keep government from growing faster than average taxpayer’s ability to fund it.

A pledge to end budget gimmicks, stop treating “emergencies” as permanent, and set a path to fiscal sustainability. The blueprint is in the policy guide and the spending logic is in the case for fiscal sanity.

2) Broad-based tax relief that lasts because spending falls

I want a president to say: we will cut tax rates broadly and keep the base broad.

But we will not fund tax relief with hidden tax hikes like tariffs. We will fund it by shrinking the growth of government itself.

That’s how you deliver lasting relief rather than a temporary sugar high. The warnings are already clear in spending-first reform and durable tax reform.

3) A real abundance plan: deregulate production across the economy

A future SOTU should treat regulation like what it often is: a hidden tax that raises prices, blocks competitors, and protects incumbents.

That includes:

• permitting reform so energy, housing, and infrastructure can be built,
• faster approvals for innovation,
• and rolling back rules that restrict supply.

This is what pro-growth leadership looks like: not micromanaging prices, but freeing the economy to produce more.

4) A clean break from tariff-tax politics

I would want to hear a simple pledge: we will not raise tariffs to “solve” domestic problems.

We will compete through productivity, innovation, and free exchange. We will stop using emergency powers to raise taxes without accountability.

That’s the principle behind my argument that ending tariffs is pro-worker and why policymakers must stop failing basic economics.

5) Healthcare reform that makes patients the customers again

The future SOTU should reject price controls outright—MFN included—and instead commit to reforms that expand competition:

• transparent pricing,
• portable, consumer-driven options,
• direct purchasing,
• and faster, cheaper pathways for innovation.

If you want the cautionary tale, see price-control harm. If you want the middleman warning, see why bans fail.

6) Housing reform focused on supply—and federal distortions

I want a SOTU that says: we will stop blaming investors and start building homes.

Federal policy should encourage supply, not choke it. States and localities should streamline permitting and stop weaponizing zoning.

And Washington should stop doubling down on a government-directed mortgage system that distorts incentives. That means ending permanent federal dominance and restoring market pricing in housing finance.

7) Sound money and a Fed that stops fueling cycles

A future SOTU should acknowledge a reality too many leaders avoid: boom-and-bust cycles aren’t acts of God. They’re often policy-driven.

A better economy requires predictable rules, fiscal restraint, and monetary sanity.

That includes getting serious about how credit manipulation fuels cycles—see the case for limiting the Fed’s monetary weapon.

8) A freedom-first governance pledge

Finally, I want to hear the simplest promise a leader can make to restore trust: government will serve the people by doing less—protecting rights, enforcing the rule of law, and leaving voluntary exchange alone.

That’s the only sustainable path to prosperity, the only path compatible with a free society, and the only path that keeps the American experiment worth inheriting.

Call to action

If you want policy that is serious about prosperity and honest about tradeoffs, subscribe and follow my work at Ginn Economic Consulting at vanceginn.com.

I’ll keep offering the true north star Washington rarely does: let people prosper—with more competition, more supply, and less government in the way.

​Five-point review for lawmakers

• Cap federal spending growth and adopt sustainable budgets that make reforms last.
• Reject tariff hikes and other hidden taxes that raise prices for families and producers.
• Cut tax rates broadly only alongside spending restraint, not tax swaps.
• Stop healthcare price controls like MFN and push competition and transparency.
• Fix housing by building and expanding supply, not scapegoating investors.

Thank you for reading. Subscribe today.

Originally published on Substack. 

​Washington finally got a hard “no” on a habit that’s been growing for years: presidents trying to tax by executive action.
In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the emergency statute being used did not authorize President Trump’s sweeping tariffs.

The opinion is clear: IEEPA does not authorize tariffs.

That’s not a technical win. It’s a constitutional win. And it’s a practical win for families and businesses tired of tariff roulette.

If you care about affordability, competitiveness, and liberty, this is a good day!

What the Court fixed

Tariffs are taxes. That’s the point too many politicians try to blur with patriotic marketing. In our system, sweeping taxes are supposed to run through the people’s branch, not get launched through executive improvisation.

Today’s ruling reinforces that boundary by rejecting the idea that a president can stretch emergency authority into a broad, global tariff regime.

This matters because the biggest damage from “tariff-by-pen” isn’t only higher relative prices. It’s the precedent: if one president can do it, every future president will try.

Why tariffs were never the answer

Let’s be frank: tariffs were never a good idea.

They’re sold as “making foreign countries pay.” In reality, they raise costs throughout supply chains and show up in prices, margins, and paychecks here at home.

They also invite retaliation and turn trade policy into a carveout contest where the best lobbyists win exemptions.

That’s why groups speaking for small businesses, retail, apparel and footwear, consumer technology, and many others welcomed the ruling—because they’ve been living with the cost and chaos.

And the chaos matters. Businesses can’t plan, invest, hire, or price inventory when trade taxes can swing on headlines.

The workaround temptation is already here

Here’s the part that should make lawmakers grit their teeth: the administration is already trying to route around the ruling.

Within hours, reporting indicated the White House would pivot to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974—announcing a temporary 10% global tariff for 150 days, layered on top of existing duties, while teeing up other authorities.

This is the same flawed playbook with a different legal label.

And it’s not stopping there. That same reporting notes renewed plans for Section 301 investigations and revisiting Section 232 national-security tariffs.

Even if one can argue a different statute allows some tariff action, that doesn’t make it smart policy. A bad tax doesn’t become a good idea because you found a new paragraph to cite.

The tariff money: justice vs. disorder

Now for the messy reality: what happens to the tariffs already collected?

In principle, money collected under unlawful authority should go back. Some are calling for expeditious refunds and a clean administrative process.

But I’m also realistic. These tariffs were widespread and embedded in prices across countless transactions. A giant refund project could become another government fiasco—slow, uneven, litigated, and expensive to administer. Even the dissent flagged how complicated refunds could be.

So here’s the least-bad, reality-based approach:

• If refunds can be done cleanly and quickly, do them.
• If refunds become a bureaucratic calamity, apply the money to deficit reduction with a hard rule: no new spending.

Not optimal. But better than turning an unconstitutional tax into a new permanent spending stream.

What Congress should do next

The biggest lesson today is not “tariffs good” or “tariffs bad.” It’s: Congress must stop outsourcing its job.

A strong statement after the ruling made the point plainly: Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate trade, and it should treat today’s decision as a signal to reassert that authority—starting with reforms like the Trade Review Act approach.

Congress should not respond by finding new executive lanes to do the same thing. It should respond by tightening guardrails so tariff powers can’t be stretched into a blank check again.

A pro-growth path that actually lets people prosper

If the goal is stronger production, resilience, and higher wages, stop taxing trade and start fixing the policy environment that makes America expensive to build in:

• Reduce and Restrain government spending growth so debt and too often inflation pressures stop eroding paychecks.
• Cut unnecessary regulation so businesses can build, hire, and compete.
• Lower marginal tax burdens so work and investment pay off.
• Pursue more free trade agreements, especially with allies, and more trade enforcement through clear, lawful channels aimed at real misconduct, not blanket taxes that hit American families hard.

Prosperity comes from abundance—more production, more competition, more innovation—not hidden taxes at the border.

5 summary points for lawmakers
​

1. Treat tariffs as taxes—because that’s what they are.
2. Today’s 6–3 ruling is a win for the Constitution: no more emergency-law tariff blank checks.
3. Don’t replace one bad legal theory with another: the Section 122 pivot is still a tax hike.
4. Handle the tariff money responsibly: clean refunds if feasible, or deficit reduction with zero new spending if refunds become chaos.
5. Choose the pro-growth path: less spending, less regulation, lower marginal taxes, and predictable rules that let people prosper.

Originally published at Pelican Institute.

Louisiana is one of the most trade-exposed states in America. That’s not a slogan, it’s our economic reality. So when Washington plays roulette with tariffs, Louisianans don’t just read about it, they feel it in port activity, energy exports, manufacturing costs, farm demand, and household budgets.

That’s why today’s 6–3 Supreme Court decision limiting President Trump’s broad unilateral tariffs is a real positive for our state. The Court restored a basic constitutional boundary: sweeping tariffs cannot be imposed through stretched executive authority. Read the opinion and the case summary here.

What’s in the Opinion?

In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson, the Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. 

Justice Roberts wrote in the opinion that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress alone the authority to “lay and collect Taxes Duties, Imposts and Excises,” and relies on precedent to clarify that the power to impose tariffs is a taxing power. The government relied on the words “regulate” and “importation” in IEEPA as a grant of Congress’ power to tax to the executive to impose tariffs of any amount, for any duration, on any product from any country. The Court declined to find that the statute’s ambiguous language constituted a delegation of Congressional power, just as it did in finding that the words “safe and healthful working conditions” in the OSHA statute did not authorize the Biden administration to impose a vaccine mandate on 84 million Americans. The Court found it telling that the language of the IEEPA statute grants the President a specific list of powers, but none of which is the power to impose tariffs or duties. 

Justice Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion to underscore the importance of the deliberative nature of the legislative process. “[M]ost major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people…are funneled through the legislative process for a reason…Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man. In all, the legislative process helps ensure each of us has a stake in the laws that govern us and in the Nation’s future.” 

Why Louisiana benefits more than most

Trade isn’t a side issue here. Louisiana was the 4th largest state exporter of goods in 2024, with about $87.0 billion in goods exports and exports accounting for 27.6% of state GDP. That kind of openness is a strength, but it also means tariff shocks hit harder.

Add energy to the mix and the stakes rise. Louisiana is responsible for 61% of U.S. LNG exports. When global trade policy becomes unpredictable, that uncertainty bleeds into investment decisions, contract pricing, and long-term capacity planning.

Then there’s the ports. Cargo moving through the Port of New Orleans’ marine terminals supports 89,827 jobs in Louisiana (and far more nationally). That’s paychecks tied directly to the smooth flow of commerce. Tariff volatility is bad for that flow.

So when the Court reins in executive tariff power, it reduces uncertainty in the very channels Louisiana depends on most.

The frank truth: tariffs were never a good idea

Tariffs are taxes. They’re marketed as toughness. In practice, they are a cost piled onto supply chains that gets passed through to consumers and businesses. That’s why groups representing small businesses, retail, apparel and footwear, and consumer technology welcomed today’s ruling.

That broad response matters. Louisiana competes because we produce and move real goods at scale. We don’t win when Washington taxes inputs, disrupts markets, and invites retaliation. Even when tariffs are pitched as temporary leverage, the economic damage tends to linger through higher costs and politicized carveouts.

Refunds are messy—but the bigger task is preventing a repeat

​There’s an understandable debate over what happens next with tariffs already collected. In principle, money collected under unlawful authority should be returned. In practice, the burden of tariffs was spread widely and embedded in prices throughout the economy. A massive refund process could become another expensive, bureaucratic mess.

If refunds can be done cleanly and quickly, fine. If they turn into chaos, there’s a second-best option: apply the funds to deficit reduction with a strict rule against turning it into new spending. Either way, the bigger priority is to stop the executive branch from using legal loopholes to tax by decree again.

More work to do: Congress must reclaim its job

This ruling is a strong constitutional correction, but it doesn’t finish the job. Congress should stop outsourcing trade and tariff decisions and then pretending it’s powerless. If tariffs are going to happen, lawmakers should debate and vote on them openly.

A practical step is strengthening congressional review such as the Trade Review Act framework so major tariffs can’t persist without legislative approval.

A pro-growth Louisiana path that actually helps families

If the goal is stronger wages, resilience, and affordability, tariffs are the wrong lever. The better path is pro-growth policy:

• Restrain spending growth to reduce inflationary pressure and debt risk.
• Cut regulation that raises the cost of building, permitting, and producing.
• Lower tax burdens on work and investment so Louisiana can attract capital and jobs.
• Expand energy and infrastructure capacity so we sell more to the world instead of taxing ourselves at the border.

That’s how we strengthen Louisiana: constitutional accountability, open competition, more production, and less government distortion—so people can prosper.