​How much power should unelected federal agencies have?

Ashley Baker, Executive Director of the Committee for Justice, joins me to discuss the Supreme Court, FTC power, antitrust enforcement, regulatory costs, and why constitutional restraints matter for competition and innovation.

We discuss Trump v. Slaughter, the end of the remaining Humphrey’s Executor precedent, how regulatory process itself can become costly, and why regulations aimed at large companies can sometimes create a moat protecting incumbents from smaller competitors.

The bigger question: How do we hold government accountable while preserving competition and innovation?

Subscribe, like, and share the Let People Prosper Show.

More: VanceGinn.com
Newsletter: Let People Prosper

​Regulation isn't free.

Every new rule changes incentives, raises compliance costs, and affects the choices available to consumers, workers, entrepreneurs, and investors.

In this episode, Richard Morrison and I discuss why better regulation—not simply more regulation—is essential for a thriving economy. From ESG and banking to agency power and corporate governance, we explain why economic freedom remains one of the strongest foundations for innovation, investment, and prosperity.

Subscribe for more conversations on economics, policy, and freedom.
​
Visit vanceginn.com and subscribe to my newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com.

Originally published on Substack. 

College sports are not amateur anymore. That debate is over. Athletes are getting paid through NIL. Schools are preparing to share revenue directly with players. Coaches are managing rosters like free agency. Donors are financing what increasingly looks like payroll.

The question now is not whether college sports will change. It already has. The question is whether Congress will respond by protecting athletes and consumers or by protecting the NCAA’s old business model.

Washington Can’t Fix Every Broken Play

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is right that the status quo is unsustainable. The Protect College Sports Act would create federal rules around NIL, transfers, athlete protections, state-law preemption, and antitrust protection for college sports. Some of that sounds reasonable because the current system is a mess.

But Washington should be careful. A bad market does not become better simply because Congress manages it.

The House v. NCAA settlement changed everything by allowing schools to pay athletes directly, with Division I programs able to share roughly $20.5 million annually with athletes, in addition to scholarships and benefits. That is not old-school amateurism with endorsement deals on the side. And it is a professional sports model trying to live inside a university system built for education.
​
Incentives Are Changing Fast
​
This new system changes incentives in ways no one fully understands yet.

Athletes will chase compensation. Schools will chase talent. Donors will chase wins. Conferences will chase media money. Administrators will chase revenue. Coaches will chase roster stability. Agents and collectives will chase leverage.

That is not necessarily immoral. It is economics. But it is also why Congress should not pretend it can design the right college sports market from Washington.

The Sorsby Situation Shows the Chaos

The Brendan Sorsby situation at Texas Tech shows the problem.

He transferred into my alma mater amid NIL litigation, gambling-related eligibility disputes, Big 12 concerns, NCAA involvement, and now reporting that the NCAA has opened an inquiry into Cincinnati. Earlier reports said he planned to enter the NFL Supplemental Draft, but later reporting said the 2026 supplemental draft was canceled and he is training for the 2027 NFL Draft.

That is chaos.

But chaos is not an argument for federal control. It is an argument for honest contracts, transparent rules, enforceable accountability, and a clearer separation between education and professional entertainment.
Build a Real Minor LeagueHere is the uncomfortable truth: big-time college football and basketball are becoming minor-league sports. So let them become that honestly.

Create private athletic entities separate from universities. Let them license school brands, rent stadiums, contract with athletes, negotiate media rights, and operate like the entertainment businesses they already are becoming.

Athletes could earn what the market will pay. Fans could still cheer for familiar colors. Schools could still benefit financially through licensing and facility agreements.

But universities could return to their core mission: education.

Let Universities Educate Again

That mission matters. Higher education should form citizens, advance knowledge, cultivate discipline, and prepare the bright young minds of tomorrow for work, family, leadership, and self-government.

Universities were not created to become sports holding companies with classrooms attached. Congress should not freeze today’s broken hybrid into federal law: professional money, amateur language, NCAA protection, political oversight, and university risk.

Keep Federal Policy Narrow​

A better federal role would be limited.

Clarify interstate contract rules. Protect against fraud. Require transparency where public universities and taxpayer resources are involved. Protect athlete health and scholarship commitments. Then let markets, schools, conferences, fans, and athletes sort out the rest.

College sports need reform. They need honesty more. Let athletes earn. Let private leagues develop. Let universities educate. Let fans choose.

And let Washington stop calling plays it cannot understand from the sideline.

​In Episode 199 of the Let People Prosper Show, Vance Ginn interviews Patrick McLaughlin of the Hoover Institution about how regulation affects transportation, freight costs, and economic growth.

The discussion explores how regulatory accumulation functions as a hidden tax across the economy, raising prices for consumers while slowing productivity and investment. They also discuss freight transportation, supply chain efficiency, the response to the East Palestine derailment, and why policymakers should focus on measurable, outcome-based regulation rather than symbolic mandates.

This episode highlights why transportation and regulatory policy matter far more to everyday affordability than most people realize.

Listen on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify. Show notes on Substack. 

Originally published at The Daily Economy. 
​
A recent cyberattack on the University of Mississippi Medical Center shut down clinic operations for nine days, disrupting appointments and access to care across Mississippi. According to the center’s own official system update, scheduling, communications, and clinical workflows were all impacted.

Nine days without normal access to care is not just a cybersecurity problem. It is a market structure problem.

The University of Mississippi Medical Center is not simply another hospital. It is Mississippi’s only academic medical center and serves as the state’s primary hub for specialty care, physician training, and complex services. By its own description, it provides levels of care “unavailable anywhere else in the state.” That concentration means when UMMC goes down, much of Mississippi’s advanced care capacity goes down with it.

In a competitive system, that should not happen.

When a major provider in most industries goes offline, others step in. Capacity shifts. Customers reroute. The system bends but does not break. In Mississippi, it broke.

A System Built to Concentrate

That fragility is not an accident. It is the result of policy.

Mississippi has long enforced certificate-of-need laws that require government approval before new hospitals, surgical centers, or major medical services can open or expand. These laws are often justified as cost-control measures. In practice, they limit entry and protect incumbents.

Mississippi’s version is among the more restrictive. Applications can cost tens of thousands of dollars, and existing providers are allowed to challenge potential competitors. The effect is predictable. Fewer entrants. Slower expansion. Less redundancy.

Policy analysis by the Mississippi Center for Public Policy found that, without CON restrictions, Mississippi could have supported 30 percent more rural hospitals and 13 percent more ambulatory surgical centers, thereby increasing access in underserved areas. A comparable state without such restrictions would have roughly 165 hospitals, compared with Mississippi’s 116, a difference of more than 30 percent in total capacity in 2017.

That missing capacity matters most when something goes wrong.

Fragility Has Consequences

The cyberattack did not create Mississippi’s access problem. It exposed it.

When a single institution serves as the backbone of a state’s healthcare system, any disruption becomes systemic. Patients do not simply go elsewhere. In many cases, there is nowhere else to go.

That means delayed diagnoses, postponed treatments, and worsening conditions. It means longer wait times in an already strained system. And in extreme cases, it can mean preventable harm.

Across the country, wait times for physician appointments are already rising, particularly for primary and specialty care. Systems with limited competition are less able to absorb shocks, making those delays even more severe when disruptions occur.

This is what lack of competition looks like in practice. Not just higher prices, but reduced resilience.

The Financing Problem

Market structure is only part of the story. The way healthcare is financed amplifies the problem.

Most healthcare dollars do not flow through patients. They flow through insurers, employers, and government programs. That disconnect weakens the most important signal in any market: price.

When patients are not paying out of pocket, providers compete less on value and more on navigating reimbursement systems. Administrative costs rise. Innovation slows. Capacity becomes rigid rather than responsive.

This is the core issue identified in the Empower Patients framework. Healthcare in the United States is dominated by third-party control rather than patient decision-making.

The result is a system that is both expensive and fragile.

What Competition Looks Like

When competition is allowed, the results differ.

Transparent providers such as the Surgery Center of Oklahoma publish prices upfront and often deliver care at significantly lower cost than traditional hospital systems. Direct Primary Care practices offer faster access, longer visits, and predictable pricing by operating outside insurance billing.

These models do more than reduce costs. They add capacity. They create alternatives. They make the system more resilient.

If one provider goes offline, others are available.

Mississippi has fewer alternatives because policy has limited their growth. Even when regulators approved a new hospital in Biloxi, the process revealed how difficult it is to add capacity. The state issued a certificate of need in 2012 for a replacement facility, but incumbent hospitals sued to block the project, delaying it for years, arguing it was not a true replacement. That prolonged fight stemmed from the original plan to build a new hospital to replace Gulf Coast Medical Center after it was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. In short, even obvious community needs can be slowed by legal challenges from existing providers. 

The pattern continues: recent consolidation has further strengthened dominant systems on the Gulf Coast, and policymakers pursue only incremental changes to certificate-of-need laws, while others call for a broader overhaul of the state’s restrictions.

A map depicting states where an incumbent competitor may object to a new facility. Image credit: The Mississippi Center for Public Policy.

​A Warning for Policymakers

The Mississippi cyberattack should be viewed as a warning, not an anomaly. It revealed how vulnerable a healthcare system becomes when competition is restricted and capacity is concentrated. What looks efficient on paper can be fragile in practice.

Mississippi is not an outlier. 35 states and DC operate under certificate-of-need laws that limit the number of new providers and expansion. States have been working to improve their CON laws, reflecting a growing recognition that the current structure is too rigid. But incremental reform will not solve a structural problem.

A Better Path Forward

A more resilient healthcare system that empowers patients requires more than cybersecurity upgrades. It requires policy change.

First, remove barriers to entry that prevent new providers from entering the market. In Mississippi, the state could support 30 percent more rural hospitals and 13 percent more ambulatory surgical centers, meaning more options for patients and more capacity when disruptions occur.

Second, shift financing toward patient control. When individuals manage their own healthcare dollars, they have an incentive to seek value, compare options, and demand better service.

Third, reduce regulatory burdens that divert resources from care to compliance.
​
These changes would not only lower costs. They would make the system stronger.

The Real Lesson

Mississippi’s healthcare system did not fail because of a cyberattack alone. It failed because it lacked the flexibility and redundancy to respond. One hospital system should never be a single point of failure for an entire state.
​
The way to prevent that is not more centralization. It is more competition, more capacity, and more patient control. That is the lesson Mississippi offers — and it is one policymakers across the country should take seriously.

The stated goal is healthier choices. The early result is a bureaucratic maze that treats low-income adults like children, burdens retailers, and substitutes political nutrition theories for dignity and common sense.

The fresh Washington Post reporting is the real tell. Across nearly two dozen states with approved waivers, and ten already implementing them as of the report, recipients and retailers are running into a patchwork of rules that is inconsistent, counterintuitive, and hard to administer.

That is not a side effect. It is what happens when government tries to micromanage millions of grocery decisions from above.

The Knowledge Problem
​
This is another economic titan Friedrich Hayek who coined the “knowledge problem,” which is now being realized in a grocery cart.

In Idaho, KitKats and Twix were allowed because they contain flour, while other candy was banned.

In Iowa, the Post reported that one mother’s sweetened sparkling water and semisweet baking chips were rejected while chips and cookies still went through. Some cold sandwiches may qualify or not depending on details that ordinary families cannot possibly track in real time, and retailers told the Post that even Pedialyte was excluded under the state’s rules.

That is not serious nutrition policy. That is bureaucratic absurdity.

When politicians and agencies try to define “healthy” one product at a time, they do not create clarity. They create loopholes, contradictions, and arbitrary line-drawing. The result is exactly what Friedman warned about: a system run by people who do not bear the costs of the mistakes they make.

A Tax on Small Retailers

This is not just paternalism. It is an administrative tax.

The Post reported that some states did not provide product-code lists, leaving retailers to guess or to buy third-party lists that can cost thousands of dollars.

In West Virginia, the state said even buying a one-time list to give retailers was “cost prohibitive” at $130,000. In Oklahoma, one nonprofit grocer said SNAP accounted for about 60 percent of total sales, which means compliance mistakes are not trivial. They threaten the business itself.

This is how government makes life more expensive without calling it a tax. Stores have to update systems, train employees, sort through vague rules, and worry about losing authorization if they get something wrong.

USDA told the Post it would initially avoid penalizing minor mistakes, but after a 90-day runway enforcement had already begun in at least five states. That kind of uncertainty falls hardest on smaller retailers, especially those serving poorer neighborhoods.

Picking Winners and Losers

These rules also end up picking winners and losers in ways that have little to do with health.
​
USDA’s waiver tracker shows that all 22 approved states restricted certain drinks, while 14 also restricted candy, but the definitions vary from state to state.

Some rules focus on soda, some on candy, some on sales-tax treatment, and some on broader categories of desserts or sweetened beverages. That means the same family can face different rules depending on where they live, and suppliers can be advantaged or disadvantaged based on arbitrary classifications.

That is not a neutral safety net. It is political consumer management.

The Dignity Problem

The most revealing part of the Post story was not economic. It was human.

Recipients described being surprised, embarrassed, and stigmatized at checkout. One participant in Oklahoma said rejected items had to be put back. Others joined a lawsuit challenging the changes in five states, arguing the rules are unlawful and harmful to vulnerable households.

Supporters of the restrictions say the policies should be tested and measured. Fair enough. But if the early rollout is already producing confusion and humiliation without clear evidence of better outcomes, that should give policymakers pause.

True dignity does not come from a government-approved shopping cart. It comes from being able to earn, provide, and choose for yourself.

The Bigger Administrative State

This is part of a larger pattern.

The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that more than 100 MAHA-related state measures were introduced in 2025, including efforts to restrict SNAP purchases and regulate food ingredients and additives.

At the federal level, the FDA’s 2026 food priorities include several MAHA-related deliverables. Whatever one thinks of the health goals, the practical reality is obvious: government is layering more administration, more compliance, and more politics onto one more part of daily life.

And as the progressive group CBPP has warned in a broader SNAP context, administrative burdens matter. Complexity can lead to delays, confusion, and people losing access to benefits they are eligible for. Even people who support nutrition reform should understand that adding friction is not costless.

The Better Standard

If policymakers really care about health, they should use Friedman’s standard and ask what actually works.

Does this policy improve health outcomes in a way that justifies the confusion, stigma, compliance costs, and arbitrary classifications? Or is it mostly another case of government trying to play parent with other people’s lives while avoiding the harder work of promoting self-sufficiency, income growth, and real upward mobility?

Government is a poor parent, a clumsy nutritionist, and an expensive helper. The better North Star is not more checkout-line supervision. It is helping people get to the point where they can buy what they want with their own earned income and live with the consequences as free adults.

Three Takeaways for Policymakers

1. Good intentions are not enough.

The early evidence shows state SNAP restrictions are creating confusing and counterintuitive checkout rules, not clear nutrition standards.

2. Administrative burdens are real costs.

Retailers face system changes, compliance risks, and in some cases thousands of dollars in added costs, while states themselves are struggling with implementation.
​
3. Dignity should matter more.

A policy that increases stigma and confusion without clear evidence of better outcomes deserves much more skepticism than it has gotten so far.

​Artificial intelligence is transforming the economy—but the policy response may be doing more harm than good.

In Episode 194 of the Let People Prosper Show, I sit down with Logan Kolas of the American Consumer Institute to examine the surge in state-level AI regulation and what it means for innovation, competition, and consumer welfare.

As lawmakers across the country rush to regulate AI, many are creating a fragmented patchwork of rules that risk increasing costs, slowing technological progress, and limiting opportunity. This episode explores why these policies often miss the mark and what a more effective, pro-growth framework could look like.

If the United States wants to lead in AI while protecting consumers, it will need policies grounded in sound economics—not fear-driven regulation.

👉 Learn more: ⁠https://vanceginn.com⁠
​👉 Show notes: ⁠https://vanceginn.substack.com/p/51c930fb-1357-4a44-9436-fdf915f651ad⁠
Subscribe for more conversations on economics, policy, and how to let people prosper.

Originally published on Substack.

Most Americans do not wake up thinking about regulation. They think about grocery bills, utility costs, insurance premiums, housing prices, the permit that takes too long, the form that makes no sense, and the feeling that everything in life is harder and more expensive than it should be.

That is regulation.

It is not just some abstract fight in Washington. It shows up in the prices we pay, the jobs that never materialize, the businesses that never open, the homes that never get built, and the choices we are no longer trusted to make for ourselves.

The latest Ten Thousand Commandments 2026 by the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s initial estimates that federal regulation imposes at least $2.1 trillion in annual compliance costs and economic effects, while noting that the true burden is likely much higher.

That is not some rounding error.

CEI estimates that the average U.S. household pays about $15,859 per year in a hidden regulatory tax. That amounts to about 15 percent of income and 20 percent of household expenses.

The report says that burden exceeds what households spend on health care, food, transportation, entertainment, apparel, services, and savings. Only housing costs more. In other words, regulation is not just a business problem. It is one of the largest costs in everyday American life.

The Hidden Tax

Politicians love to talk about taxes because taxes are visible. You see the withholding. You file the return. You know the government took your money.

Regulation is more deceptive. It usually does not arrive as a bill from the IRS. It arrives as higher prices, fewer choices, more delays, lower wages, and more time wasted navigating bureaucracy.

Businesses absorb the compliance burden first, but they do not keep it. It gets passed through to workers, consumers, and investors. That is why regulation often acts like a tax that was never openly debated and never honestly priced.
​
CEI notes that its $2.153 trillion regulatory burden rivals the $2.426 trillion collected in individual income taxes in 2024 and stands at more than four times corporate income tax collections.

That should alarm anyone who cares about affordability.

Rules Replacing Laws

This is not just an economic problem. It is a constitutional one.

In 2025, federal agencies issued 2,441 final rules while Congress enacted just 133 laws. That means agencies issued rules at a pace of 18 for every law passed by elected lawmakers.

CEI’s Unconstitutionality Index shows the 10-year average is 22 rules for every law. That is not self-government in any serious sense. That is bureaucratic lawmaking replacing representative lawmaking.

And that replacement has been building for decades. Since 1976, federal agencies have issued 223,623 final rules. Since 1993, when CEI first began publishing this report, agencies have issued 126,536 final rules.

Washington is governing more and more of American life through agency command rather than legislative accountability.

Paperwork Is Policy Too

A lot of regulation does not even look dramatic. It looks like paperwork.

It is reporting, disclosure, certification, duplication, delay, and procedural nonsense that drains time and energy out of productive life. CEI highlights 10.5 billion paperwork hours from the federal government’s own accounting, the equivalent of nearly 14,983 human lifetimes.

That is not protecting the public. That is pulling talent and time away from work, production, and family life to feed bureaucracy. This is how regulation encumbers daily life. It turns permission into the default and freedom into the exception.

Real Progress, Limited Progress

The report does show meaningful progress in 2025. Agencies issued 2,441 final rules, the lowest tally on record. The Federal Register dropped 43 percent, from 106,109 pages in Biden’s final year to 60,917 pages in 2025.

The administration also used the Congressional Review Act aggressively, signing 22 resolutions of disapproval, more than all prior enacted CRA resolutions combined. OMB’s year-end accounting under Executive Order 14192 also reported 646 deregulatory actions and five significant regulatory actions, for a ratio of 129-to-1.

Good. Keep going.

But let’s not oversell it. CEI is clear that the broader aggregate burden is essentially unchanged because modest annualized savings are being offset by inflation applied to the legacy regulatory state. It also notes that Congress still has not delivered the structural reforms needed to make deregulation durable.

A good year of executive cleanup does not erase a century of delegated power, embedded mandates, and administrative sprawl.

What Needs to Happen

That is why the real fix has to be structural, not episodic.

Congress should reclaim authority over major rulemaking. A regulatory budget would force agencies to live under a cap just as lawmakers are supposed to do with fiscal spending.

The REINS-style approach of requiring congressional approval for major rules would restore accountability. Rules should sunset unless affirmatively renewed. And the White House should be required to produce honest aggregate cost estimates under the Regulatory Right-to-Know framework instead of letting the biggest hidden tax in America remain half-accounted for.

If Congress wants less regulation, it should stop outsourcing lawmaking to agencies and then pretending not to notice the cost.

Three Takeaways for Policymakers

1. Regulation is a hidden tax on everyday life.

Federal regulation costs at least $2.153 trillion annually, or about $15,859 per household.

2. Bureaucrats are making too much law.

Agencies issued 18 rules for every law Congress passed in 2025, and the 10-year average is 22-to-1.

3. Durable reform requires Congress, not just presidents.

A lower rule count is good, but only structural reforms like a regulatory budget, congressional approval of major rules, and sunsetting can truly rightsize Washington.

The administrative state does not just live in Washington. It lives in your prices, your paperwork, your delays, your shrinking choices, and your lost opportunities.
​
That is why this fight matters. Let people prosper!