​Executive Summary
​Media Competition Is an Attention Market, Not a SiloMedia competition is no longer best understood as a contest among separate industries such as cable, broadcast, streaming, social video, gaming, podcasts, music, and news. Consumers do not live inside those regulatory boxes. They allocate scarce time across them. That means modern media is best understood as an attention market. This framing matters because antitrust debates too often begin with the wrong question. They ask whether one firm is “too big” or whether one deal sounds politically uncomfortable. The better question is whether consumers are likely to face higher prices, reduced output, lower quality, or slower innovation. That is the core of the consumer welfare standard, and it remains the best guardrail against turning antitrust into industrial policy.

News competes through search, social feeds, short-form clips, podcasts, newsletters, streaming channels, and direct subscriptions. The competitive field is no longer defined by ownership of a printing press or broadcast tower. Gaming, music, podcasts, and social chat are real attention rivals. They may not look like “television” to regulators, but consumers experience them as substitutes for leisure time. A household deciding between a soccer match, a game, a long podcast, or a documentary is still allocating scarce time. Streaming adoption and traditional pay-TV penetration figures reflect recent subscription data, which show high streaming penetration and declining pay-TV adoption.

Consumer Power Is Stronger Than Policymakers Often Admit
Consumer power in modern media comes from low switching costs, multi-homing, bundling, churn, ad-tier migration, and product iteration. Low switching costs are central. Consumers can add, cancel, downgrade, upgrade, or rotate among services. Even when a platform is popular, it must continue to earn attention. Popularity is not captivity. Multi-homing is normal. Consumers do not choose one media provider. They typically use several platforms across paid subscriptions, free ad-supported services, social video, podcasts, music, gaming, and news. This makes it harder to sustain durable harm because users can reduce engagement without exiting entirely.

The video market is mature and saturated. Recent streaming subscription data found that 91% of U.S. internet households subscribe to at least one streaming video service, while traditional pay TV has fallen to 41%. The same data describe consumers averaging nearly six video subscriptions and spending about $109 per month across video services. Consumer price sensitivity is also strong. The digital media consumer research cited earlier shows that consumers are increasingly adopting ad-supported tiers and remain frustrated by recurring price increases. These facts matter. A market where consumers churn, downgrade, use ad tiers, switch between homes, and substitute across formats is not a captive market. Firms may test prices, bundles, and ad loads, but consumers respond.
​

​Sam Peltzman’s political economy of regulation holds that regulators respond to political incentives rather than to consumer welfare. This matters in the media because the sector is politically salient. Politicians care deeply about speech, news, sports, cultural influence, and platform access. Hayek’s knowledge problem provides the deeper philosophical warning. Central planners lack the dispersed knowledge that market participants reveal through prices, experimentation, and consumer choice. Attempts to design market outcomes from above often fail because they cannot replicate market discovery. Ted Bolema’s recommendation that Congress clarify the role of the consumer welfare standard is useful here. His analysis of FTC policy argues that statutory clarity would reduce agency discretion and help prevent politicized enforcement.

The conclusion is direct: if policymakers want more media competition, they should reduce barriers to entry and expansion.

A Serious Pro-Competition Agenda Starts by Lowering Barriers
A serious pro-competition agenda should focus on two principles: disciplined antitrust and fewer government barriers.

1. Keep antitrust centered on consumer welfare. The standard should remain prices, output, quality, and innovation. If a merger or conduct harms consumers, challenge it. If not, do not use enforcement to preserve legacy firms or satisfy political pressure.
2. Treat the media as an attention market. Use broad evidence like the Communications Marketplace Report, cross-platform viewing measurement, and consumer behavior research. Do not define markets so narrowly that substitution disappears.
3. Apply error-cost humility. Fast-moving markets punish regulatory overconfidence. False positives can reduce investment, chill innovation, and entrench incumbents by raising compliance costs.
4. Prefer narrow remedies tied to demonstrable harms. Where harm exists, remedies should fix the harm, not create a permanent regulatory regime.
5. Reduce barriers to entry. Congress and state legislatures should review laws and rules that raise fixed costs for new distributors, creators, and platforms. More competition comes from easier entry, not more micromanagement.
6. Avoid industrial planning. Policymakers should not use antitrust to engineer the “right” number of media companies, protect favored content, or punish disfavored firms. That path undermines the competitive process.

Policymakers, policy staff, or media: Check out the full report and contact me at the button below if you'd like to discuss. ​

Research published with Jenny Clark at Club for Growth Foundation. 

America’s kindergarten through 12th grade (K–12) public education system is failing too many students, despite the fact that more taxpayer money is currently being spent on it than ever before.

Public schools operate as a government-controlled monopoly, leaving families with limited options for their children’s education and with limited ways to hold school officials accountable for poor outcomes. Nationwide, student achievement remains stagnant. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reveals declining proficiency rates in key subjects like math and reading, even as states spend billions of dollars on public education each year. In many cases, administrative costs are growing faster than teacher salaries, diverting resources away from the classroom and into bloated bureaucracies.

For example, from the 2024 results of The Nation’s Report Card, we see a nation with students in crisis. Reading scores are down nationally for students in both the fourth and eighth grades, and no state saw reading gains in either grade level compared to 2022. The 2024 NAEP results indicate that less than a third of all American students nationwide are reading at the NAEP Proficient level. Around 40 percent of fourth graders are working below the NAEP Basic level in reading. Furthermore, 33 percent of eighth graders are not even reading at the NAEP Basic level—meaning that roughly a third of eighth graders would most likely be unable to identify basic literary elements in a text.1 In short, American students are not equipped to be successfully functioning citizens if the majority are unable to read proficiently by the eighth grade. A functionally illiterate society threatens American freedoms such as free speech, religious freedom, and our representative form of government. It also undermines our nation’s important role in the world. Most concerning is that illiteracy weakens the ability of individuals to thrive independently of the government.

Educational freedom, rooted in free market principles, offers a proven solution. By allowing families to direct education funding toward the best learning environment for their children—whether that be a public, charter, private, homeschool, or hybrid model—competition is introduced, forcing schools to innovate, become more efficient, and prioritize student success. Universal Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), tax-credit scholarships, open enrollment policies, and deregulation can break the cycle of underperformance and wasted spending, empowering both parents and teachers to effect educational change.

This handbook provides a comprehensive analysis of educational freedom in America and the free market principles that drive its success. Section 1 examines the failures of the current system and highlights how competition and choice can revolutionize K–12 education. Section 2 breaks down the government school monopoly, exposing its inefficiencies and the lack of incentives for improvement. Section 3 outlines actionable policy recommendations, including the implementation of ESAs, the expansion of charter and magnet schools, and regulatory reform to encourage educational entrepreneurship.
​
By learning from successful states like Arizona and Florida—where school choice policies have led to better student outcomes at a lower cost—legislators and the public will be more willing to embrace reforms that will give every child access to a high-quality education tailored to their unique needs. The path forward is clear: Empower families, introduce competition, and let education dollars follow student needs, not systems.

Check out the one-pager that provides key insights from the full report for lawmakers and interested parties.

Originally published at Pelican Institute. 

​You can download the full report here. 

Originally published on Substack. 

​Yesterday I had the honor of presenting at the U.S. Capitol alongside Grover Norquist with Tax Reform for the release of my new paper, “Will Washington Hand the Future of Biotech to Beijing?”

I’m grateful for the opportunity to share this research with Members of Congress, staff, and leaders who care about the future of American innovation.

​The issue at stake couldn’t be more serious. Biotechnology is not just another industry. It’s about whether the next generation of cures for cancer, Alzheimer’s, or rare diseases are discovered here—or in Beijing or likely not at all. It’s about whether American patients get access to those treatments first—or whether they’re forced to wait behind lines set by governments.

America Leads When Government Steps Back

America didn’t become the global biotech leader through central planning. We got here because government—imperfectly, and only occasionally—pulled back to let markets breathe (though not enough).
​

• Bayh-Dole Act (1980): Before this, tens of thousands of taxpayer-funded inventions sat unused. Not a single drug discovered with federal dollars ever reached patients. Bayh-Dole didn’t create innovation—it simply allowed universities and companies to commercialize discoveries that government had been locking away.
• Hatch-Waxman Act (1984): Reduced government barriers that kept generics off the market while still giving innovators temporary exclusivity.
• Orphan Drug Act (1983): Tried to encourage investment in rare diseases by offering exclusivity and tax credits. It helped bring new therapies, but it also created distortions and opportunities for companies to game the system. That’s the risk whenever government tinkers with incentives.
• Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (2002): Addressed the fact that government’s own framework discouraged pediatric trials. By allowing six extra months of market exclusivity, it gave firms a reason to study how drugs work in kids—research that should never have been discouraged in the first place.
• Medicare Part D (2003): Showed that private competition beats government formularies. Costs came in 40% below projections because the market—not bureaucrats—belie helped set prices (not enough).

These were not examples of government fixing markets. They were examples of government loosening its grip just enough for markets to work. And even then, Washington never really let go. The state is still deeply embedded in biotech—funding, regulating, approving, and increasingly, dictating prices.

Washington’s Wrong Turn

Instead of stepping back further, Washington is going the other direction.

Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act gave bureaucrats sweeping power to dictate drug prices. And this May, President Trump signed a Most Favored Nation executive order tying U.S. prescription drug prices to foreign government caps.

The problem of foreign freeloading is real. Countries like Canada and Germany deliberately underpay by imposing price controls, knowing U.S. patients will shoulder the cost. The Council of Economic Advisers estimates Americans fund nearly 70% of global patented drug profits despite being only one-third of global GDP.

But importing their broken systems here won’t solve it. Research published at National Bureau of Economic Research found that slashing U.S. drug prices by 40–50% would cut early-stage R&D by 30–60%. That doesn’t make medicines cheaper. It makes them disappear.

The MFN order may not cause cuts that steep, but it sends a signal to investors: Washington is willing to cap returns. That chills investment—and cures vanish.

Meanwhile, Washington already directs about 60% of all U.S. healthcare spending. That isn’t a free market. It’s government control. And when government dominates, price signals vanish, competition collapses, and costs rise. That’s not a failure of markets. That’s a failure of government.

Meanwhile, China Surges Ahead

While we smother our innovators, China is racing forward with its Made in China 2025 strategy.

• Biotech market size: $74 billion in 2023, projected to reach $263 billion by 2030.
• Clinical trials: U.S. share fell from 39% in 2009 to 35% in 2024. China’s rose from 1% to 30%, and it’s on track to surpass us by 2027.
• STEM talent: China produced 338,000 advanced STEM degrees in 2020 vs. 221,000 in the U.S. That gap is widening.
• Global deals: In May, Novartis signed a $5.2 billion deal with China’s Argo Biopharma. That’s major investment flowing eastward.

China doesn’t need to out-innovate us. It just needs to let Washington keep kneecapping our own innovators.

Incentives Drive Innovation

Drug development costs more than $2 billion per therapy and takes a decade or more. Most attempts fail. The only reason investors take that risk is the possibility of earning a return and reinvesting in the next breakthrough. Take away that incentive, and the pipeline dries up.

Europe proves the point. Patients there wait years longer for new therapies, and many drugs never arrive at all. That’s the cost of government-imposed price controls.

The lesson is clear: government intervention suffocates incentives. Freedom unleashes them.

A Better Path Forward

Here’s how Congress can protect America’s biotech leadership:

1. Reject price-setting. Repeal IRA mandates and block MFN.
2. Protect property rights. Keep Bayh-Dole intact. Don’t politicize “march-in rights.”
3. Streamline FDA approvals. Recognize peer-nation approvals. Cut needless delays.
4. Empower patients. Expand No-Limit HSAs and encourage Direct Primary Care.
5. Restrain government spending. A sustainable budget removes the excuse for more control.
6. Confront foreign freeloading directly. Use trade and IP enforcement to push allies to pay their share instead of importing their bad policies.

Closing Thoughts

This debate isn’t about whether markets work—they do. It’s about whether government will keep distorting them.

The Constitution itself recognized the power of protecting inventors’ rights. America’s prosperity didn’t come from government programs. It came from the freedom to innovate, compete, and serve people. The more Washington steps back, the more patients win.

If Washington doubles down on control, China will gladly take our place. But if we trust freedom, America will remain the global leader in cures and innovation.

I’m grateful to Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform for hosting this event at the Capitol, and to everyone committed to restoring freedom in healthcare. The path forward is clear: end government failures, protect property rights, empower patients, and let people prosper.

Read Report: https://atr.org/race-for-innovation/

Originally published at Texans for Fiscal Responsibility. Updated in September 2025 with the latest property tax data.

Property taxes are a financial burden that Texans can no longer afford to endure. Over the past 27 years, Figure 1 illustrates how property taxes have increased by an unsustainable 364%, far outpacing population and inflation growth of 149%.

​For Texans, this is not just an economic issue—it’s a question of fairness and freedom. Property taxes make homeowners perpetual renters, burden renters, and businesses, and restrict economic opportunity. Despite six legislative attempts since 1997, Table 1 shows that the latest structural problems driving property tax growth remain unaddressed and unresolved. Texans need bold, permanent solutions.

​Two pathways to finally eliminate property taxes include: 

1. Surplus-driven buydowns funded by limiting spending, or
2. Redesigned tax system that swaps funding by increasing sales or other taxes. 

Ultimately, Texas can achieve true homeownership and foster economic prosperity through spending restraint, transparency, and voter accountability.

The Problem: Why Property Taxes Must Go
​Property taxes are burdensome in both design and execution. Figures 2 and 3 highlight how property taxes have increased more than fourfold since 1998. This unchecked growth has created severe economic distortions and eroded true homeownership.

​Property taxes affect all families who are homeowners, renters, and business owners, as noted in the Texas Comptroller’s 2023 report. Figure 4 from the Texas Comptroller’s Office shows that estimated school property taxes’ final incidence (i.e., burden) hits families across Texas.

​Source: Texas Comptroller’s Tax Exemptions and Tax Incidence Report

• Homeowners: Even after making mortgage payments, taxes continue to come in. If a homeowner fails to pay, the government can seize their property.
• Renters: Landlords pass property taxes down to renters, raising the cost of housing.
• Businesses: Higher property taxes discourage investment and reduce competitiveness.

Homestead Exemptions: A Misguided Solution
While well-intentioned, homestead exemptions, which exempt an amount from the appraised value for property taxes, are not the answer:

• Excludes Renters and Businesses: Relief only applies to homeowners, leaving families who are renters and business owners to carry a greater share of the spending burden. Everyone pays higher property tax rates than otherwise, making eliminating them more difficult.
• Locks People In: Exemptions incentivize homeowners to remain in their properties even if moving would better suit their needs.
• Loses Value Over Time: As property values rise, the relative value of a $100,000 exemption shrinks, rendering it ineffective over the long term.

A Lack of Accountability
Most local governments, except special purpose districts and some other small tax jurisdictions with a maximum of 8%, can raise property taxes by 3.5% on existing property (with no limitation on new property) without direct voter approval. 

With these loopholes in current law, county and city taxes increased by over 10% last year. This lack of oversight enables runaway spending and taxes. To address this, all property tax increases above 0% must require voter approval, with a 0% growth rate unless explicitly approved by the public. 

This means that as the County appraisal office does appraisals, the property tax rate determined by the local governing body must go down, so that the tax revenue (levy) collected doesn’t change from the prior period. This levy cap system makes appraisal caps or tax rate caps unnecessary, and the no-new-revenue rate is what the levy cap should be.

The limitation must be on the levy collected from all property taxes, which a strong spending limit that covers spending from all revenue, including property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues, should ultimately do. This would make it less relevant where the tax revenue comes from as the spending and, therefore, taxes are held in check and hopefully reduced.

Pathway 1: Surplus-Driven Buydowns
The surplus-driven buydown approach systematically reduces property taxes over time by dedicating state budget surpluses to lowering tax rates until they are zero. This gradual method ensures that essential services remain funded during the transition.

How It Works

1. Cap Local Tax Increases:
   • Implement a 0% voter approval rate for local property tax increases. Voters must explicitly approve any proposed increase until they are eliminated.
2. Limit State and Local Spending Growth:
   • Cap state spending and local spending growth with a maximum rate of population growth plus inflation, providing higher surpluses over time.
3. Dedicate State and Local Surpluses:
   • Allocate annual state general revenue surpluses to buying down (i.e., compress) school district maintenance and operations (M&O) property tax rates, and local government surpluses to buying down their property tax rates, to zero. 
4. Phase Out Debt Taxes:
   • Local governments have interest and sinking (I&S) taxes for debt purposes. In most cases, eliminate the largest of the two, M&O taxes, first, then I&S taxes.

​
Scenarios of Surplus Buydowns to Eliminate Property Taxes

• Scenario A: State Surplus Buydown of School District M&O Property Taxes
  • This scenario would take about 10 years to eliminate the school district M&O property taxes.
  • Eliminating school district I&S property taxes with either state surplus or local surplus buydown could take another 6 years. 
  • This would effectively move 100% of funding government schools to state taxes (mostly sales taxes), thereby eliminating Recapture (Robin Hood), but it would not change local control under current law. 

​

• Scenario B: Accelerated Buydown of School District M&O and I&S Property Taxes
  • Assuming the 3% spending limit with a 90% surplus buydown and a 2% transfer tax rate on the sale of property, which would need a constitutional amendment, eliminating both could take about 8 years instead of the 16 in Scenario A. 

​

• Scenario C: Buydown of Other Local Government M&O Property Taxes
  • Assuming a 2% spending limit on local governments with a surplus buydown using local taxpayer dollars, mostly from sales taxes, eliminating local government M&O property taxes for cities, counties, and special purpose districts could take 28 years, even longer for I&S. Of course, a transfer tax on the sale of property would help speed up these elimination periods.

​Pros of Surplus Buydown Method

• Reduces Texans’ Tax Burden: Fund the surplus buydown through fiscal restraint from strict state and local spending limits would reduce future taxes and the government’s size and scope.
• Incremental, Transparent Progress: Provide incremental, immediate annual relief for taxpayers and prevent backdoor tax increases by requiring voter approval.

Cons of Surplus Buydown Method

• Reliance on Political Decisions: Could depend on politicians consistently providing surplus generation from spending restraint.
• Requires Coordination: Maintain fiscal discipline by state and local governments, which has been difficult to nonexistent after multiple attempts at reforms.

Pathway 2: Sales Tax (Swap) Redesign
A redesigned tax system in Texas would swap sales taxes for property taxes, preferably with a strong spending state and local spending limit and surplus buydown to reduce sales and other taxes. This approach depends on: 

1. broadening the sales tax base while also, 
2. keeping sales tax rates competitive.

How the Redesign Works

1. Expand the Sales Tax Base:
   • Include currently exempt goods and services, such as boats, airplanes, and professional services, in the tax base
   • Maintain exemptions for essentials like groceries and prescription medications (though the sales tax rates could be lower if these items are taxed).
   • According to the Texas Comptroller, Table 5 shows an estimated $42.2 billion in sales tax exemptions, $12.9 billion in exclusions, and $354.7 million in discounts in 2023, for a total of $55.5 billion.

2. Adjust State and Local Sales Tax Base and Rates:

• The state replaces school district M&O taxes (see Table below): 
  1. Requires a sales tax rate of 11.85% with the currently taxed GDP base of $745.3 billion or an expansion of the base by 44% of $1.07 trillion to keep the state and local sales tax rate at 8.25%. However, by expanding the base by 29% to $963.8 billion while not double-taxing items, the sales tax rate would increase to 9.16% (7.77% for state rate and 1.39% for local rate), which would not be the highest in the country, and nearly half of the property tax would be eliminated. 
  2. Table 6 provides the sales taxes needed to replace school district M&O property taxes with different GDP bases, static state and local sales tax rates, GDP base expansion, and dynamic state and local tax rates.

​

• The state replaces school district M&O, and locals replace their M&O (Table 7)
  1. Requires a static state and local sales tax rate of 16.24% without expanding the sales tax base to cover school district, city, county, and special purpose district M&O property taxes. To keep the same 8.25% combined sales tax rate, the GDP base for sales taxes would need to expand by 51%. These approaches are politically difficult and would make the state highly uncompetitive with neighboring states. 
  2. The better approach would be to expand the sales tax base by at least 29% for a state and local sales tax rate of 12.57%, with the state rate at 7.77% and the local rate at 4.8%. This sales tax rate remains high but could be doable given that 75% of property taxes would be eliminated, and just the I&S property taxes would remain. 

​

• The state replaces school district M&O, and locals replace M&O and I&S (Table 8): 
  1. This requires a state and local sales tax rate of 18.98% without expanding the sales tax base of $745.3 billion to cover school district, city, county, and special purpose district M&O and I&S property taxes along with the sales taxes collected at the state and local levels. To keep the same 8.25% combined sales tax rate, the GDP base for sales taxes would need to expand by 84% to $1.37 trillion. These aren’t politically or economically possible and would make the state highly uncompetitive. 
  2. The better approach would be to expand the sales tax base by at least 29% to $963.8 billion for a state and local sales tax rate of 14.68%, with the state rate at 7.77% and the local rate increasing to 6.9%. This sales tax rate is likely too high. Still, it would eliminate all property taxes in Texas, and the dynamic rate from more economic growth from this approach would bring the combined rate down closer to 13%, which would be the highest in the country but without any taxes on property.

3. Ensure Spending Restraint, Transparency, and Accountability:

• Avoid taxing intermediate goods to prevent double taxation, do not allow any future increases in sales tax rates, and 
• Use the surplus buydown approach with a strict spending limit discussed above to reduce sales tax rates, franchise tax rates, or other taxes. 
• Table 9 shows the surplus buydown biennially using historical averages for the school district M&O property tax elimination with a redesigned tax system. This property tax would have been eliminated in 2024-25, and the surpluses of $5.9 billion in 2026-27 and after that could be used to reduce other tax rates.

​Pros of Tax System Redesign

• Immediate Relief: Fully replaces some or all property taxes in one reform, as spending is restrained and there is no need for revenue-neutral redesign.
• Economic Efficiency: Encourages investment and entrepreneurship by taxing consumption, not ownership, and supports greater economic growth.

Cons of Tax System Redesign

• May Not Reduce the Tax Burden: Increasing sales taxes to eliminate property taxes does nothing to reduce state or local government spending or decrease the future tax burden unless it is a net tax cut, which, combined with spending less, is preferable.
• Implementation Complexity: Requiring significant effort initially but possibly needing much less than other efforts later on. 

Rejecting a European-style VAT
Some suggest implementing a Value-Added Tax (VAT) instead of a broader sales tax to fund the property tax swap. This would be a mistake:

• Hidden Costs: VATs embed taxes at every production stage, obscuring the true tax burden for consumers.
• Complexity: Administrative and compliance costs are much higher than a simple sales tax.
• Economic Distortions: VATs disproportionately harm lower-income households by raising the cost of goods.

Texas must avoid adopting European-style tax systems that stifle economic freedom and growth.

Recommendations for Legislators
To ensure success, any plan to eliminate property taxes must include the following:

1. Voter Approval for Any Property Tax Increase
   • Require voter approval for any increases in local property taxes (or sales taxes).
2. Focus on Rate Compression
   • Focus on permanent tax elimination through lowering property tax rates instead of temporary relief measures, like the homestead exemption, that exclude families who are renters or business owners.
3. Cap Spending Growth
   • To reduce the size and scope of government and support consistent surpluses, limit state and local spending increases to, at most, the rate of population growth plus inflation, with surpluses being used to lower tax rates.
4. Pass Constitutional Amendment: After eliminating property taxes, pass a constitutional amendment so they can never return.

Conclusion: A Bold Vision for Texas
Texas must move beyond temporary fixes and fundamentally transform the state-local tax system. Whether through surplus-driven buydowns or a redesigned sales tax, the result will be a freer, fairer, and more prosperous state. 

​Texans deserve true property ownership, economic opportunity, and a government that operates within its means. 
​
Let’s end property taxes and empower Texans to prosper. The time to act is now.