 Originally published at Kansas Policy Institute.
Campaign season produces plenty of promises. Candidates tell us what they will spend, cut, subsidize, protect, and deliver. Voters should ask a harder question: What limits will you put on yourself once you have power? Washington Post columnist George Will recently offered three questions voters should ask congressional candidates. His questions concern runaway federal deficits, presidential emergency powers, and Congress handing regulatory authority to unelected agencies. Different issues, same problem: Government grows when politicians face weak incentives to restrain themselves. Kansas should learn from Washington’s mistakes. Lest anyone be confused, this isn’t a partisan point or to support anyone for office – something KPI is prohibited from doing. This is an attempt to ask readers, and all Kansans, to cut through the campaign rhetoric and demand actual answers to real questions. Make Politicians Face Tradeoffs George Will starts with federal debt. Washington routinely spends far more than it collects, pushing the cost onto future taxpayers. He highlights Warren Buffett’s provocative idea: make members of Congress ineligible for reelection whenever the deficit exceeds 3% of GDP. The details are debatable. The economic lesson is not. Politicians respond to incentives just like everyone else. Spending creates visible beneficiaries today while taxes and debt spread the costs across millions of people and future generations. Kansas cannot print money or accumulate Washington-sized deficits. But the same spending incentives exist in Topeka. That is why KPI’s Responsible Kansas Budget matters. Its basic principle is simple: government spending should not grow faster than the average taxpayer’s ability to pay, measured by population growth plus inflation. A responsible budget should establish an appropriate baseline, restrain spending, and use surpluses for broad-based tax relief instead of permanently expanding government. Put Power Back Will’s second concern is presidential emergency power. Temporary powers have a remarkable habit of becoming permanent. His solution is straightforward: require Congress to approve presidential emergencies after 30 days. Kansas policymakers should embrace the broader principle. Legislatures exist to legislate. Major decisions about taxes, spending, regulation, and individual liberty should not migrate toward governors and administrative agencies simply because voting on difficult issues is inconvenient. This is may prove difficult in a state with nearly 300 school districts, 105 counties, a constitutionally-established Board of Education, and other complications. But the principle is remains: delegate less, vote more. Make Lawmakers Own Regulation Will’s third idea may be the most important. Congress delegates enormous regulatory powers to federal agencies and then complains about what those agencies do. The (federal) REINS Act would require congressional approval of major federal regulations. Kansas should consider the same philosophy. Regulations impose real costs even when those costs never appear in a government budget. Businesses spend money complying. Workers lose opportunities. Entrepreneurs face barriers to entry. Consumers ultimately pay more. Kansas has taken important steps in recent years along these lines (HB 2291 in 2025) but more should be done. If a regulation carries major economic consequences, elected lawmakers need to be in the drivers seat. That is accountability. Ask Who Will Say No Will’s three questions point toward a larger principle. Candidates naturally tell voters what government will do for them. Voters should ask what politicians will refuse to do to them. Kansas can lead by adopting a Responsible Kansas Budget, requiring legislative accountability for major regulations, limiting emergency powers, and reducing delegation to administrative agencies. Then ask every candidate one final question: When spending more money or exercising more power would be politically popular, what will stop you? The answer may tell voters more than a hundred campaign promises ever will.
0 Comments
 Originally published at the Kansas Policy Institute.
The latest bad idea from the global policy class is dressed up as compassion: the world needs less growth. That may sell at international conferences. It should not sell in Kansas. In a recent piece for the American Institute for Economic Research’s The Daily Economy,“The Poverty of the UN’s Degrowth Agenda,” I explained why the push to move “beyond growth” would leave people poorer, more dependent, and less free. Advocates talk about fairness and sustainability. The result is fewer jobs, less innovation, higher costs, and a smaller future for families trying to get ahead. Kansas does not need that mindset. It has already seen what slow growth does. The 2026 Kansas Green Book shows Kansas has ranked near the bottom since 1998 in private-sector job growth, private-sector wage growth, GDP growth, and domestic migration. That is not just a data problem. It is a dinner-table problem. When opportunity fades, people leave. Young workers look elsewhere. Businesses expand in states with lower costs and fewer barriers. Families stay only if the numbers still work. Kansas has real strengths: productive land, capable workers, strong communities, energy resources, manufacturers, logistics advantages, and entrepreneurs who know how to create value. But those strengths can be wasted when the government makes it too expensive to live, hire, invest, and build. Recent data show both promise and caution. The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that Kansas had the fastest real GDP growth in the nation in the third quarter of 2025 at 6.5 percent annualized. Personal income grew 6.3 percent, also the fastest in the country. Production led the way, with agriculture playing a major role. That was encouraging. But one strong quarter does not fix a long-term weakness. The latest BEA first-quarter 2026 report shows U.S. real GDP grew 2.1 percent annualized, while Kansas grew only 1.0 percent. Real GDP increased in 46 states and the District of Columbia. Kansas grew, but it trailed the national pace and remained far from the top performers. Kansas can grow when people produce more. But it will not sustain growth if policymakers keep accepting high costs, weak competitiveness, and too much government. Farmers need lower costs and fewer policy shocks. Manufacturers need reliable energy and a better tax climate. Small businesses need less red tape. Families need property taxes that do not punish them for staying in their homes. As I wrote in “Kansas Has a Cost Problem,” the state collects and spends too much for the results it delivers. Every dollar spent by the government first comes from someone who earned it. There is no free lunch in Topeka. There is only a bill shifted to taxpayers, consumers, property owners, or future generations. Kansas should start with a responsible budget that grows no faster than population growth plus inflation. Americans for Tax Reform’s Sustainable Budget Project shows how much room Kansas could have created for lasting tax relief if spending had followed that simple limit over the last decade. That is not austerity. It is discipline. Kansas should also stop mistaking subsidies for strategy. Ribbon cuttings make good headlines, but favored deals rarely make good economics. As I argued in “Subsidies Cost Kansans Even When Revenues Rise,” every special deal has an opportunity cost. Money used to privilege one company cannot be used to lower rates for everyone. That matters for agriculture, energy, housing, manufacturing, and technology. Kansas should welcome investment, but with a clear rule: pay your way. Do not ask families and existing businesses to subsidize politically connected projects. Growth built on favoritism is fragile. Growth “planned” by a policymaker from any political party is no growth at all. Growth built on freedom lasts. The poverty of the degrowth agenda is that it treats prosperity as something to ration instead of something to unleash. Kansas should reject that error in every form. Kansas can drift, or Kansas can lead. But it will not lead by producing less, taxing more, subsidizing favorites, or accepting average results. |
Vance Ginn, Ph.D.
|
RSS Feed
Proudly powered by Weebly