Listen to my interview here.
Write-up on my interview here: Young people are still trying to achieve the American dream of purchasing their first home but it's become increasingly more difficult in recent years. It's not as easy today to buy a home. Many people are living in apartments or townhomes instead of houses and some may also have a roommate or two to save money in an era of higher costs for housing. Texas-based Economist Vance Ginn calls it more of an American dream instead of the American dream because it's a different dream for everyone and young people are having to scale back their dreams of ending up in a bigger home. "Folks who are just starting in their careers and trying to find a house have had to downsize those aspirations on how big of a house they can get," he said. The high housing costs are a result of multiple things happening at the federal level but also at local levels too. Ginn said excessive government spending and the Federal Reserve printing too much money have been a recipe for this disaster. "There's a lot of local zoning regulations and other things that are hindering the supply of new homes being built," said Ginn. "This has contributed to housing unaffordability across the country." Former President Donald Trump has also said that government overspending as well as the mass amounts of illegal aliens coming into the country over the last four years have caused the demand for housing and prices to skyrocket. Ginn said that approach of deporting illegal aliens can help the situation but it doesn't fully address the supply issue. Vice President Kamala Harris has proposed building around three million new homes over the next few years and providing up to $25,000 in down-payment assistance to first-time buyers. Ginn said that would only increase the already high demand and the price of housing even more and the main focus should instead be on reducing inflation and federal spending. "Cutting government spending and reducing the debt will contribute to less inflation so that people can afford things like housing and food," Ginn said.
0 Comments
North Dakota voters could end property taxes — and pour ‘gas on the spark’ of a growing tax revolt10/21/2024 Originally published at Market Watch.
Supporters of Measure 4 say it would repeal the 'most egregious and least moral of all the taxes.' Critics say it would 'create chaos.' Many homeowners across the U.S. aren't happy with property-tax bills that have climbed alongside a pricier real-estate market. But voters in North Dakota have a chance to act on that discontent next month by repealing property taxes and barring counties, towns and other local governments from levying them. If the ballot measure passes, North Dakota would become the first U.S. state to end property taxes. Its passage could also add muscle to the push to eliminate the tax elsewhere, property-tax skeptics say. The idea has been floated in states like Texas, Nebraska and Michigan, while lawmakers in the Great Plains and Mountain West states say big reforms are needed quickly. Property taxes are the "most egregious and least moral of all the taxes," according to Rick Becker, chair of the organization that put Measure 4 on the North Dakota state ballot. The ballot measure would repeal residential, commercial and agricultural property taxes, he noted. These taxes uses opaque formulas to make homeowners keep paying for property they already own, he said. They're also based on the "unrealized" paper value of a home, he added. For Becker, a "yes" vote is a win inside the state and beyond. "Once that happens, the light turns on for so many people. As soon as a state steps outside that box, the other states see how possible that is," Becker said. "The sky didn't fall, and maybe we should give it a try." On the other hand, Chad Oban, who chairs Keep It Local, a coalition opposing the ballot measure, argued that property taxes need fixes - but not a "sledgehammer approach." The group's members include utility companies, farmers, educators, business groups and law enforcement. "I think we're going to defeat Measure 4," said Oban. "But I do think if it passes, there will be a lot of other states doing something similarly, or feeling like there's a political appetite." However, "if North Dakota - ruby-red North Dakota - thinks it's a bridge too far," it could make others reconsider their bids to bury the tax, Oban noted. The measure leaves it to state legislators to figure out where money comes from next for schools, parks and roads, he said. "It will create chaos, frankly, if it passes." Four in 10 North Dakota voters say they oppose the ballot initiative and 28% say they'll vote for it, according to a late-September poll of 500 voters commissioned by the North Dakota Monitor, a state news outlet. One-third of voters hadn't made up their minds, the poll said. Same proposal, rising property-tax frustration North Dakota voters easily rejected a 2012 proposal to end the state's property taxes. But the current proposal is coming at a time when voters are more frustrated, Becker and Oban both said. Municipalities across the country collected $363.3 billion in property taxes from single-family homes last year, according to Attom, a real-estate data-analytics company - a nearly 7% annual increase. The average property-tax bill climbed 4%, to more than $4,000, Attom said. Nationally, homeowners faced an effective tax rate of 0.87% on their home's estimated market value, per Attom data. North Dakotans paid a higher-than-average rate, at 0.99%, but still far less than residents of top-taxing states like Illinois, New Jersey and Connecticut. Seven in 10 people (69%) say their property taxes are too high, slightly more than the 67% who say their federal income taxes are too steep, according to a poll conducted in December 2023 by the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy and the Associated Press NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Six in 10 people say their property-tax bill is unfair, the survey said. Though property-tax bills have climbed on the back of higher assessed values, people feel they aren't getting the same increase in services, said Jared Walczak, vice president of state projects at the Tax Foundation, a center-right think tank. Even when municipalities hold their property-tax rates steady, they are still collecting more tax revenue from rising property values, he noted. "To some degree, it's been opportunistic," he said. "That's why it's rubbed so many homeowners the wrong way." Read more: My property-tax bill spiked 40%. I fought the city - and won. Can I get tax write-offs for my time and costs? Property-tax ire isn't new, Walczak added. California voters famously capped property-tax hikes with the Proposition 13 ballot measure way back in 1978. States also have all sorts of tax breaks geared toward property-tax relief, especially for senior citizens. Talk of repealing property taxes has long occurred at the margins, Walczak said. "It's one thing to have this ongoing low murmur; it's another thing to have it start to bubble up to the surface," he said. "That seems to be where we are going now." Still, while there are good justifications to reform the tax, "none of this is a good reason to repeal the property tax," Walczak said. Karla Wagner, executive director of the organization AxMiTax, led an effort in Michigan this year to get a property-tax repeal on the ballot. The first-time attempt didn't gather enough signatures, but Wagner said her organization would try again. The taxes are salt on the wound when people are already stretched thin, according to Wagner. "Pickleball courts or someone's home - which is more important? Stop spending our money foolishly. Stop taking our homes away when we can't afford our bill," she said, referring to the state's tax-foreclosure laws. If they catch on, repeals are "going to spread like wildfire," Wagner said. Approval of the ballot measure in North Dakota, she added, would be "the gas on the spark." How Measure 4 might play out Measure 4 would "require the state to provide replacement payments" to the local government entities at "no less than the current real property-tax levies," according to the ballot measure's text. It could cost the state's coffers $3.15 billion over a two-year window, according to the measure. The projected aftermath of Measure 4 is a good reason to vote "no," according to North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, a Republican. "What you will do is, you will cause someone else to pick up the tab. That's what this whole thing is about. It's about, who's going to pay for it? It doesn't lower the cost of delivering anything in our state," Burgum said in August, according to the radio news outlet Prairie Public. Burgum's office did not respond to a request for comment. Becker, a Republican former lawmaker who served 10 years in the state's House of Representatives, said the state can afford the change with better decisions on its own budget. It's on counties, towns and cities to figure out how to pay for costs above what the state covers, he noted. One idea is establishing formulas for residents and businesses to pay their share of those costs. In response to critics who say the measure would take away local control over spending decisions, Becker said the approach keeps local residents in control - just not with a tax pegged to a property's assessed value. He added that, by design, the specifics of legislative next steps aren't part of the state constitutional measure; those are for elected lawmakers to decide. Vance Ginn, an economist in Texas, said state and local governments should find a way to move past property taxes, which he views as an "immoral form of taxation." Spending guardrails and changes to sales taxes could be part of the answer, according to Ginn, president of an economic consulting firm whose clients include conservative-leaning think tanks like Americans for Tax Reform. Ginn said he supports Measure 4 generally, but is concerned there "isn't a tangible path forward." If the vote fails, it's a lesson that crystal-clear funding alternatives need to accompany future repeal attempts, he added. Nevertheless, "what North Dakota is doing is helping to drive the narrative for the need to do something about property taxes," Ginn said. As Walczak sees it, turning to other taxes as a replacement would hurt "far more than a property tax does now." He's waiting to see what happens with the North Dakota vote, and what could come next. "It's likely to turn out very poorly - but it could be hard to reverse," he said. -Andrew Keshner This content was created by MarketWatch, which is operated by Dow Jones & Co. MarketWatch is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal. (END) Dow Jones Newswires 10-21-24 0600ET Copyright (c) 2024 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. 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:
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 posted at The Sentinel.
In a recently released report, the Kansas Department of Legislative Post Audit found that an economic development tool popular with cities across the state often do not work as intended. The department evaluated six “Tax Increment Financing” districts across the state to determine if they were working as designed. In 1976 the Kansas State Legislature authorized cities to create TIF districts. A TIF district, also known as a redevelopment district, is a defined area within a city that uses a tax increment to help fund development. When a city establishes a TIF district, the assessed valuation of all existing real property located in the district is effectively frozen at a base level. Any subsequent property tax revenue generated above the base level — either from increases to the value of existing property or from the added value of new property — is called the “tax increment.” The development can involve building houses or apartments, renovating retail space, cleaning up environmental contaminants, and more. The idea is to leverage future tax revenue from value increases to pay for development that might not otherwise have occurred. There are 114 TIF districts in the most populous cities in Kansas — most in Kansas City, Kansas and Wichita — and Post Audit picked six from across the state for study: - Melrose (Kansas City): this is an industrial (business and industry) district that was created in 2002. It was completed in 2022. - College Hill (Topeka): this is a mixed-use district (with a large residential component) that was created in 2006. At the time of the report, it was still active. - Douglas & Hillside (Wichita): this is a mixed-use district (with a large residential component) that was created in 2006. At the time of the report, it was still active. - Lambertz (Salina): this is a retail district that was created in 2007. It was completed in 2020. - Ken Mar (Wichita): this is a retail district that was created in 2008. At the time of the report, it was still active. - Valley View (Overland Park): this is a retail district that was created in 2010. At the time of the report, it was still active. Post Audit reviewed project documents and tax records to determine the construction and financing timelines for the selected TIF districts and found that three of the six TIF districts reviewed are not expected to pay off their TIF costs on time or have not generated enough revenue to cover these costs. All six of the TIF districts reviewed are on track to be at or below estimated costs, but most experienced delays in construction. Additionally, Post Audit said of the TIF districts they reviewed, cities have incurred between $1.6 and $7 million in direct costs and in at least four of the districts there are significant indirect costs because of and increase in crime. Moreover, it is difficult for the state to determine the efficacy of TIF districts as — while state law authorizes them — they are administered by local city governments. TIF districts don’t have the benefits many claim While Post Audit was at pains to note that six districts is too small a sample size to extrapolate results for all 144 state-wide, Economist Dr. Vance Ginn, a senior fellow at the Kansas Policy Institute — which owns the Sentinel — said in a recent post on the KPI website, that the issue is far more complicated than it might seem. “The reality of TIF projects is far more complicated, as audits frequently show delays in cost recovery and overestimated economic benefits,” Ginn wrote. “Worse, these government subsidies often crowd out private investment and leave taxpayers footing the bill for developments that may not deliver their promised benefits.” As an example, Ginn noted the College Hill district — audited by the department — in Topkea. “The audit for Topeka’s College Hill district revealed that the city is expected to use general funds to cover 40% of project costs — diverting resources from other essential services,” he wrote “This mismanagement highlights a fundamental problem with TIF districts: they often fail to deliver the economic benefits they promise while locking cities into long-term financial commitments.” Ginn, who was also the former chief economist in the White House Office of Management and Budget also noted that — while the audit was successful at quantifying direct costs to the cities, it “overlooked a more significant issue — the opportunity costs to taxpayers.” “What if the funds tied up in these TIF projects had remained in the hands of taxpayers instead?” Ginn asked in the column. “Instead of subsidizing developers, that money could have stayed in local pockets, allowing individuals to spend, save, or invest in ways that meet their needs and preferences. This missed opportunity for organic economic growth — driven by individual decisions rather than government intervention — should not be ignored.” Moreover, Ginn said, the direct costs noted by the audit do not include the additional interest on the debt accumulated when cities use bonds to finance their portion of the projects. “These costs ultimately fall on taxpayers, as cities must dip into general funds or raise taxes to cover the shortfalls,” Ginn wrote. “Worse, these funds could have been used for other purposes — like lowering taxes or investing in essential public services — if the city had avoided entering into these development deals in the first place.” Ultimately Ginn said, TIF districts are simply inefficient and expensive. “The audit of Kansas’s TIF districts reveals deep flaws in the management and outcomes of these projects,” he wrote. “Rather than continuing to gamble on subsidies that rarely deliver, policymakers should focus on spending less and putting more money back into the hands of taxpayers. The costs of TIF districts — direct and in terms of missed opportunities — are too great to ignore. “A more prosperous future lies in allowing individuals to drive economic growth through their choices rather than relying on government subsidies that pick winners and losers.” Watch the full NTD News interview here.
Originally published at KTRH Local Houston and Texas News
Will The Fed Repeat 1970's Policy Mistakes? By B.D. Hobbs Oct 9, 2024 Last month, the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates just in time for the election. But beyond November, many economists fear that we could be heading for a repeat of the same mistakes the Fed made in the 1970's. "Bad decisions then, seem to be reminiscent or very similar to what we are seeing today" said Texas based economist, Dr. Vance Ginn, "And my concern is, is that we may repeat those past failed mistakes of the 1970's and see inflation go up even higher because they're not taking the necessary steps to bring down inflation." So what are those bad decisions? Basically taking their foot off the brake, and hitting the gas too fast. "When they pushed back on the gas (in the 1970's) with all of this money creation throughout the economy, that pushed inflation back up" Ginn told KTRH, "In fact, inflation went up higher and then we had a double-dip recession after that." The reality is, we are at a critical moment for the economy. Join us for "Ballot Battle: The 2024 Presidential Election," hosted by the Tulane Journal of Policy & Political Economy. This engaging panel will feature speakers from the Trump administration, human rights and immigration attorneys, and political science experts. Explore the implications of the 2024 election on key issues like immigration, economic policy, and Supreme Court reform. Gain insights from diverse perspectives and engage in a respectful, moderated debate.
Don't miss this opportunity for enlightening discussion and civic engagement that highlights the importance of informed participation in our democracy. Be part of the conversation shaping our nation's future! This was a great event on 10/8/2024! Originally posted at The Sentinal. Read my full testimony here or watch it at YouTube below at minute 38:00. Kansas is spending too much and needs to reform the way it creates the yearly budget, was the message Dr. Vance Ginn — a senior fellow at the Kansas Policy Institute, told a state legislature committee on Oct. 2, 2024. Dr. Vance Ginn Ginn, who was also the former chief economist in the White House Office of Management and Budget and is president of Ginn Economic Consulting, told the Special Committee on Budget Process and Development the “main problem of government” is how much is spent. “Unfortunately, in Kansas, there’s too much that’s being spent,” he said. “I know that’s why you’re looking at budget process reforms and how to spend less over time to make sure that you have the best use of taxpayer money that’s coming out of the productive private sector.” Ginn pointed to Colorado as a good example. “When you look at Colorado, which has (gone) from red to purple to blue over time, one of the things that’s helped them to restrain spending, no matter what the political situation has been, is their Taxpayer Bill of Rights,” Ginn said. “TABOR, as it’s called, is a spending limit that limits the growth of the budget to no more than population growth plus inflation, which is a good measure of the average taxpayer’s ability to pay for government spending. “Now it’s been weakened a little bit over time by some courts and by politicians and things of that nature, but it still has been able to hold their spending to population and inflation and keep taxes down lower than it otherwise would be.” Ginn noted that other countries are doing something similar as well. “We’ve also seen spending limits work in other countries. Sweden and others. The Swiss debt break is another example of that, ” he said. “So it’s not just the states, which I think is important, as we’re talking about here in Kansas today, but also to look at what other countries have done.” Ginn also suggested looking at a longer-term budget — if perhaps not as long as the federal government’s 10-year budget projections. “I don’t know how far in advance you want to go, but maybe a couple of years, two or three years, I think looks good to figure out what’s happening for the future,” he said. “How are the trends looking for different areas of the budget, whether you look at health care, education, transportation, I think those things are really important. It’s something that’s been able to work in Florida to help to restrain the spending over time.” Ginn suggested other measures as well, including independent efficiency audits, such as Texas uses, to help find waste within state departments. He also said the state should look at an annual budget analysis. “So you have the budget that’s passed, but then look at it throughout each year to ensure that those dollars are being spent wisely and that we’re getting the effectiveness — the intended goals are being met for each one of these programs as well,” he said. Ginn is also an advocate of “zero-based” and “priority-based budgeting,” as well. “I think it is really important to adopt priority-based budgeting,” Ginn said. “Zero-based budgeting is important. Start from scratch and build your way up. It’s kind of costly, it’s time consuming to do some of those things. But there’s also performance-based budgeting to make sure that you’re getting the performance out of these. So a combination of those is priority-based budgeting, which I think, if you’re looking at the annual reviews, would be a great opportunity for you all to make some suggestions, make some changes.” Spending per resident in 2022Kansas spent $4,941 per resident in 2022, excluding federal and debt-related spending, as reported by the National Association of State Budget Officers. By comparison, Colorado spent $3,935 per resident. Missouri ($3,110) and Oklahoma ($3,404) also spent a lot less per resident to provide the same services as Kansas. Only Nebraska spent more, at $5,268 per resident. Just getting to Colorado’s level of efficiency would save taxpayers almost $3 billion annually. Responsible Kansas Budget would meet many of Ginn’s suggestions Ginn pushed something KPI has proposed for two years now. “The Responsible Kansas Budget” is a model to achieve a sustainable budget through tax-and-expenditure limits based on transparency and performance-based budgeting, which will rein in government spending to avoid deficits. In 2022, KPI released its first edition of the Responsible Kansas Budget for 2023. The model proposed a limit on All Funds (state funds plus federal funds) appropriations in 2023 at $21.0 billion based on limiting spending increases to the combined rate of population growth and inflation. Instead, the Legislature approved an All-Funds budget of $22.9 billion—nearly $2 billion more than the RKB. The RKB uses a simple calculation of finding the growth rate of the state’s resident population and adding it to the growth rate of the state’s Consumer Price Index [a common measure of inflation] to set maximum appropriation limits. Indeed, from fiscal 2005, through fiscal 2023, state appropriations grew from $7.2 billion to 17.1 billion. Had the RKB’s appropriation limits been in place, the growth would have been to “only” $11.4 billion, saving Kansas taxpayers roughly $5.7 billion. Listen to my discussion with Mandy Connell.
And once again pass a giant Continuing Resolution to keep spending until the end of December. Do you really think they are going to craft and pass 12 spending bills before Christmas? No, they won't. That means either another Continuing Resolution or a giant pork filled Omnibus bill that allows everyone in Congress to hide the pork they are bringing back to their districts so they can keep getting re elected. I've got Former White House OMB Chief Economist, Vance Ginn, Ph.D., today at 2:30. We're talking about how Congress is pretending that there is not a spending crisis. It’s time to address the root issue — overspending. Excessive government spending and deficits lead to inflation, higher prices, and a weaker dollar. When the government runs deficits, the Federal Reserve prints more money by mostly buying Treasury securities to cover the deficit. Find Dr. Ginn's website and sign up for his newsletter here. I joined Don Ma on NTD News to discuss whether the Fed should cut interest rates. Don’t miss it!
Originally published at KTRH News Houston.
State budget officials believe Texas would have to spend about $81.5 billion a year to end property taxes. Reducing or even eliminating the state’s high property taxes has been something on the minds of Texas lawmakers for a handful of years now. The Texas Senate Finance Committee were presented the costs from the Legislative Budget Board recently. Just over half ($42 billion) would go to cover the property taxes collected by cities, counties and special taxing districts from last year. Economist Vance Ginn calls property taxes "fundamentally immoral." "I believe that they should be eliminated at the end of the day but of course with any sort of policy change nothing is free," he said. School property taxes make up a large portion of the figure too. Budget officials say that getting rid of all property taxes collected by school districts would cost the state $39.5 billion. "That's really where the focus is is the state eliminating the school portion first," Ginn said, who believes would take about a decade if state spending is seriously limited. Ginn also suggested using surplus money to buy down the school maintenance and property tax over time wouldn't be a bad idea either in eliminating nearly half of the state's property taxes. "There are ways to do this in a fiscally conservative way that can allow for Texas to get rid of property taxes within about a decade, certainly about half the property taxes, but they could even do all the property taxes if local governments would also limit their spending," Ginn said. According to Ginn, state lawmakers have put around $18 billion towards property tax relief with $12.7 billion in new relief approved during the last legislative session. However, there has not been much change overall in Texas property taxes. "There's more that needs to be done to reign in government spending at the local levels and the state level," said Ginn. "Reducing property taxes for Texans would be a huge relief for them." Interview on NTD News.
Vice President Kamala Harris has announced plans to raise both the corporate tax rate and the rates on capital gains taxes. According to Vance Ginn, the founder and president of Ginn Economic Consulting and a former chief economist at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, these provisions will slow the economy and stifle investment. NTD spoke to him to find out more. Economics and Spending, National and Local on Qualified Opinions Podcast with Veronique De Rugy9/6/2024 Joining the show today is Vance Ginn. Vance is the founder and president of Ginn Economic Consulting, where he leverages data-driven insights to shape economic policy discussions across the nation.
Over the course of the show, Veronique and Vance discuss state and local government spending, federal spending, and the connection between the two. Don't miss it!
Unlock the Secrets of Housing Market Regulations and Real Estate Growth!
Discover how housing market regulations are reshaping real estate growth and affordability in 2024. Join Mike Mills and economist Vance Ginn, Ph.D., as they dive deep into the key policies, economic strategies, and insider insights every real estate professional needs to know. In this episode, you'll learn about the critical changes in housing market regulations and how they impact real estate growth and home affordability. Understand how fiscal policy, zoning laws, and commission structures are influencing market dynamics. Vance Ginn provides expert analysis on navigating these challenges to help Realtors and real estate professionals thrive in today's evolving landscape. Key Takeaways: Housing Market Regulations Explained: Learn how recent policy changes affect home prices, market competition, and Realtor strategies. Impact of Economic Policies: Understand how inflation, interest rates, and government spending shape the real estate market and what it means for your business. Navigating Property Tax Reforms: Discover actionable strategies to adapt to changes in property tax policies and maintain your competitive edge. Leveraging Knowledge for Growth: Get expert tips on using economic insights to drive real estate growth and stay ahead of market shifts. Don't miss out on these game-changing insights that could redefine your approach to real estate. Watch now to stay informed and ahead of the curve in 2024! 🔔 Like, Comment, and Subscribe for more in-depth discussions on real estate trends and strategies. Share your thoughts on the episode in the comments below and let us know which topic you'd like to see next! Links and Social Media: 🌐 Podcast Website: https://www.thetexasrealestateandfina... 🏠 Mike Mills Mortgage Website: www.millsteammortgage.com 📊 Vance Ginn's Website: https://www.vanceginn.com/
Originally posted here: https://www.politicsandparenting.com/p/the-economy.
Today on the show I am joined by Vance Ginn, Ph.D. A leading economist and advocate for free-market principles and fiscal conservatism. He is the former associate director for economic policy at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and chief economist at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. He is the founder and president of Ginn Economic Consulting and host of the Let People Prosper Show podcast, providing high-impact economic consulting that dives deep into pressing issues with top influencers. He lives in Round Rock, Texas, with his family, championing policies that promote economic freedom and prosperity. We discuss inflation, debt, minimum wage, currency, and tariffs. This is a great episode for average citizens trying to get a handle on this complex topic. Be sure to follow Vance on X and Substack, and check out his new article out in the Freemen-News Letter. Parents rightfully demand transparency from their school districts, and too often schools hide how much they're spending and what they're spending taxpayer dollars on. Join Mandy Drogin as she sits down with Vance Ginn, dad of 3, founder of Ginn Economic Consulting, and formerly an economist in the Trump administration, as they break down school finance and dive into how much our schools are spending and what they're spending it on.
Fox News contributor Gary Kaltbaum and former Trump Office of Management and Budget chief Vance Ginn on the latest economic developments coming from the Federal Reserve and White House.
More here. Economist Vance Ginn joined "The Joe Pags Show" to highlight the stark contrasts between a Trump-led economy and the current Biden/Harris administration's approach.
Ginn began by criticizing the Democrats' anti-growth agenda, pointing out the dangers of Kamala Harris’s push for price controls, which he argued would hurt businesses and raise costs for consumers. He explained that the Biden/Harris administration has been increasing the national debt at an alarming rate, and excessive spending remains the top issue facing America. Ginn expressed concern over Harris's plans to continue this trend, warning that it could further destabilize the economy. On taxes, Ginn highlighted Harris’s proposal to raise corporate tax rates to 28%, which he said would lead to business closures, reduced hiring, and companies moving operations overseas. In contrast, Trump’s focus on deregulation and lower taxes helped the economy thrive before the pandemic. Ginn suggested that if Trump wins in 2024, his administration would likely prioritize deregulation and tax cuts to boost economic growth. The conversation also covered global trade and supply chain issues, with Ginn advocating for a balanced approach that promotes U.S. production by reducing regulations. He concluded by comparing Trump’s and Harris's stances on economic issues like eliminating taxes on tips, emphasizing the broader economic philosophies at play. To hear Vance Ginn’s full interview with Joe Pags, click the link below. https://news.iheart.com/featured/the-joe-pags-show/content/2024-08-22-trump-vs-bidenharris-economy-explained-by-vance-ginn/ I was on NTD News on August 15, 2024, to discuss the economic agenda for the Democrats and what that could mean to you. Check it out!
Vice President Kamala Harris is expected to call for a federal ban on price gouging in an effort to help lower grocery prices. The proposal is part of Harris’s efforts to prevent corporations in the food and grocery industries from hiking up prices. NTD speaks to Vance Ginn, founder and president of Ginn Economic Consulting, about the effectiveness of price controls regarding inflationary pressures in the food and grocery industry.
Former OMB chief economist Vance Ginn discusses what positive inflation data means for Fed rate cuts on 'Varney & Co.'
Interview at KTRH News Houston.
More layoffs are coming for major businesses and corporations this year. The layoffs are expected for a wide variety of industries too. Worldwide tech companies including Google and Microsoft will make cuts and so will retail businesses including Nike and Amazon. Even finance leaders like BlackRock and Goldman Sachs say their workforce will shrink soon. A survey conducted in December last year by ResumeBuilder found that almost 40% of business leaders were anticipating layoffs in 2024. Half of those surveyed also believed a recession was possible. Vance Ginn, President of Ginn Economic Consulting, said a slowing economy is largely to blame. "You see businesses have higher costs due to inflation and at the same time consumers are cutting back so there's less demand for their product," he said. As people start to run out of money in their savings, they're also taking on more debt. Inflation, of course, is still a major factor too. Some companies are trying to implement 48-hour work weeks with some of the employees or offer them other opportunities. Ginn said that can put more stress on a slumping economy. "CEOs and employers are trying to find new ways to continue to do business and keep workers on board," Ginn said. AI is also making things more interesting. It's not wiping out the workforce completely, but some industries are fully embracing it's capabilities and that has left workers questioning their next move. "The technologic revolution that comes with AI is improving a lot of the workforce, but there are some substitution effects," said Ginn. I discussed these topics in my recent interview on NTD News.
Originally published at KTRH News Houston.
Rural towns and cities across the U.S. are still dealing with years-long workforce issues. The younger labor force is more likely to seek work elsewhere in more urban or suburban places over areas with aging workers. There's been a noticeable hit to some blue-collar jobs that have made people consider where they live and work. Dr. Vance Ginn, President of Ginn Economic Consulting, said a lot of rural communities have been trying to recollect themselves ever since the covid years. "The number of workers who have decided to move to other places along with the higher cost of living has made it more difficult for people to live in a lot of these communities," said Ginn. Because of that, people have been moving to places that are cheaper and still offer just as good quality of living. This has left rural areas stuck looking for workers to fill open positions. "There's not as many workers available to fill the jobs that are needed," Ginn said. "What we're seeing is some pretty big hardship." Ginn suggests in order to attract people back to their community or city or to get more people to move closer to them, these rural areas need to reevaluate what their property taxes and restrictions look like. "That way the affordability crisis or how much they can afford to live in those communities will go down and that will help with a lot of the shortages that we're seeing in the workforce," Ginn added. Texas seems to be doing better than some of the other larger populated states like New York and California who have higher taxes and more regulations. There have been a lot of people move to states like Florida and Tennessee too, states that don't have personal income tax. Dr. Rand Paul, Rep. Hageman and Rep. Bishop Fight to Protect Americans’ First Amendment Rights Again7/31/2024 Originally published at Sen. Rand Paul's office website.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, joined by Congresswoman Harriet Hageman (R-WY) and Congressman Dan Bishop (R-NC-08), introduced the Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act. This bill will prohibit federal employees and contractors from using their positions to direct online platforms to censor First Amendment protected speech, reinforcing our collective commitment to safeguarding the constitutional rights of all American citizens. The Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act is a streamlined iteration of the Free Speech Protection Act, tailored to address the standing issues highlighted in Murthy v. Missouri. “Americans are a free people, and we do not take infringements upon our liberties lightly. Our Founding Fathers enshrined the First Amendment to protect our God-given right to free expression, recognizing its fundamental importance to a free society,” said Dr. Paul. “With the Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act, we will strip away the barriers preventing judicial review of coercive government tactics that silence dissenting voices and ensure that no government official or contractor can undermine the First Amendment rights of Americans. We must confront and dismantle this censorship apparatus to protect our fundamental right to free speech.” “I have repeatedly said that the government cannot do by proxy what it is prohibited from doing directly. This is exactly what happened with the Biden Administration pressuring social media companies to suppress the free speech of American citizens. The Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act will not only ensure future litigants would have standing, but also would also apply to the plaintiffs in Murthy,” said Rep. Hageman. “Our forefathers ratified the First Amendment recognizing that government actors would always seek to control public discourse in order to protect their own power structure. No one has a monopoly on truth, and the Biden administration and federal agencies are not entitled to declare that American’s speech is ‘mis-information,’ ‘dis-information,’ or ‘mal-information’ and silence the message, especially when you consider how much accurate and truthful information was squelched during Covid-19 and the 2020 election. We will continue to fight to protect our First Amendment rights.” “Americans have a God-given right to free expression, and the constant attacks on the First Amendment from government bureaucrats make safeguarding that right all the more important. Malicious actors within government should never be allowed to silence and censor Americans, and Americans targeted by the Censorship Industrial Complex deserve their day in court. This legislation will ensure just that by removing barriers for judicial review and cracking down on those who aim to trample on the First Amendment,” said Rep. Bishop. The bill would:
Additional support: “In the covid era, the federal government systematically suppressed legal online speech that contradicted its policy priorities, including criticism of covid misinformation spread by the government on topics like immunity, school closures, mask and covid vaccine effectiveness, vaccine injuries, and vaccine mandates. Given the recent failure of the Supreme Court to protect Americans against this threat to free speech rights, it is vital for Congress to act to secure the First Amendment. I am pleased that Sen. Paul has authored such a bill which will prohibit Federal employees and contractors from censoring legal speech. I encourage all law makers to support the bill,” said Jay Bhatthacharya MD, PhD., Stanford University and plaintiff in Murthy v. Missouri. “Rights that cannot be vindicated in court are not rights at all. By closing the courthouse doors to Americans who are victimized by government censorship campaigns, Murthy invites the government to violate First Amendment rights at will—so long as it does so indirectly, utilizing numerous government agencies, rather than directly or through a single agency. Murthy essentially gives the government a blueprint on how to censor American citizens. This legislation says, ‘not so fast’,” said Bradley A. Smith, Chairman and Founder, Institute for Free Speech. “As we inch closer to a crucial election in November, Congress should act swiftly to stop government censorship by proxy and protect Americans’ access to information. By restricting federal employees and contractors from encouraging platforms to suppress speech directly or indirectly, this bill is an important step in the right direction. Heritage Action applauds Sen. Paul for fighting government overreach and the weaponization of censorship on Big Tech platforms,” said Ryan Walker, Executive Vice President, Heritage Action. “Let the people sue government officials who are working on the taxpayer dime to censor everyday Americans. Senator Paul is valiantly defending our Constitutional free speech rights. This bill is a no-brainer,” said L. Brent Bozell III, Founder and President, Media Research Center. “Senator Rand Paul has introduced legislation allowing citizens to sue the federal government for censoring their speech, protecting First Amendment rights. For too long, federal entities have violated free speech using government power and funds. This bill ensures courts cannot dismiss these cases on standing grounds, preventing constitutional abuses. Senator Paul’s initiative is a crucial step in safeguarding free speech, a cornerstone of our free society,” said George Landrith, President, Frontiers of Freedom Institute. “The Supreme Court’s failure to decide the Murthy v. Missouri case on the grounds that Missouri did not have standing in their attempt to protect their citizens against unconstitutional government censorship was a travesty. Senator Rand Paul’s introduction of legislation to provide states standing to sue on censorship cases would provide perhaps the only vehicle for broadly protecting free speech rights from the federal government coercing and suggesting censorship via corporate social media proxies. Americans for Limited Government proudly supports the Rand Paul legislation,” said Richard Manning, President, Americans for Limited Government. “Senator Rand Paul has long been a champion of free speech and individual liberty, and this is on full display today with his legislation that will help preserve our freedoms that some in the federal government too often are trying to destroy,” said Vance Ginn, President of Ginn Economic Consulting and Former Chief Economist of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. “As social media has grown to allow Americans more free and unfettered speech online, there have been highly motivated efforts by government officials to limit speech online using both direct and indirect forms of coercion. This is a direct challenge to the spirit and future strength of the First Amendment. The Consumer Choice Center strongly supports Sen. Paul’s “Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act” as a vehicle to end unconstitutional jawboning and hold public officials accountable when they aim to suppress public discourse and free expression online,” said Yael Ossowski, Deputy Director, Consumer Choice Center. “The Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act is a necessary corrective to the Supreme Court ruling that current law does not provide standing to victims of government-directed censorship to get their day in court. Congress should pass it quickly to allow citizens to appropriately defend their First Amendment rights,” said Phil Kerpen, President, American Commitment. “No government should have the ability to control American free speech online or censor us from speaking. NetChoice applauds Sen. Paul for taking this important step to defend the First Amendment from government officials that abuse their power by trying to suppress open and free dialogue online. Sen. Paul’s bill makes it clear that Americans have the right to challenge the government for jawboning in court. NetChoice looks forward to working with Sen. Paul and the U.S. Senate to get this issue right so that Americans and businesses are protected from government interference when exercising their constitutionally-protected speech,” said Carl Szabo,Vice President & General Counsel, NetChoice. “The recent decision in Murthy v. Missouri seemed to give government officials free rein to push social media companies to censor speech they dislike. Sen. Paul is stepping up to fix this by ensuring citizens have standing to sue when they do this. Free speech makes a comeback,” said Jim Hanson, Executive Director, America Matters. Background: On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Murthy v. Missouri, a landmark First Amendment case, that the plaintiffs did not have standing to seek an injunction against government officials who attempted to pressure platforms into censoring speech related to COVID-19. The court’s decision hinged on the plaintiffs seeking an injunction against future censorship, rather than compensation for past violations of their First Amendment rights. However, the plaintiffs would not have been able to seek compensation, even if they wanted to, as the Supreme Court has consistently refused to acknowledge a cause of action allowing individuals to seek compensation from federal officials for past First Amendment violations. Like countless other Americans, Dr. Paul was also targeted by the pervasive censorship regime during the pandemic. In 2021, Dr. Paul posted a video on YouTube to educate the public about the potentially harmful consequences of relying on ineffective cloth masks to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. YouTube took down his video and suspended his account for a week. This blatant suppression of dissenting views led him to announce that he was quitting the platform and would henceforth post his content on Rumble.com. You can read the bill HERE. |
Vance Ginn, Ph.D.
|