Originally published on Substack. 

If the economy feels harder to navigate—even after tax cuts, deregulation, and promises of growth—there’s a reason. I’ve seen it before, up close, from inside the White House.
​
This isn’t hindsight punditry. I lived it. Not sure how or why it happened, but God.

I served at the Office of Management and Budget from June 2019 through May 2020, at the pleasure of President Donald Trump as a political appointee as associate director for economic policy (“chief economist”).

I worked on what became the president’s final budget, which included $4.6 trillion in proposed savings over a decade—documented in the OMB Budget Historical Tables and scored against Congressional Budget Office baselines.
And even that wasn’t enough.

I’m writing this now because the second Trump administration reflects a deeper shift—away from pro-growth reform and toward national conservatism using progressive tools. If this continues, it will make life harder for millions of Americans, regardless of intent.

My goal here isn’t to attack; it’s to share lessons learned, warn about concerns, and offer a better path forward.

​What I Supported—and What I Warned About

Inside the administration, I strongly supported policies that genuinely helped people prosper:

• Tax relief and marginal rate reductions, especially the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which improved incentives for work, saving, and investment
• Deregulation, particularly in energy, finance, and labor markets, with compliance-cost reductions
• Pro-growth reforms that trusted people and markets—not Washington—to allocate resources

But I consistently raised concerns—internally—about three areas:

• Trade protectionism, which I warned would raise relative prices and distort supply chains—later confirmed by research
• Immigration restrictions, which reduce labor supply and long-run growth, as documented later
• Overspending, which I argued would eventually overwhelm much of the benefits of tax cuts and deregulation, which it did

At OMB, many of us pushed hard for spending restraint. The uncomfortable truth is that spending discipline was not a top priority for the president or many agency heads. Not then. And judging by today’s policies, definitely not now.

Internally, the warning was clear—and it bears repeating today: excessive spending and trade protectionism would undo the gains from tax cuts and deregulation.

When COVID Hit, Government Power Took Over

When COVID escalated in early 2020, I was often working with our senior leadership team at OMB and other executive personnel to devise ways to get government out of the way, not expand it—through regulatory relief, waivers, and flexibility consistent with OMB emergency guidance.

I also sat—more than once—in the White House’s Situation Room with economic teams to discuss how people (the economy) would respond to different policy paths.

I was vehemently opposed to lockdowns.

I warned senior leadership and others intensely that the policies being pushed by Dr. Anthony Fauci and others would:

• Break market coordination (supported by analyses on mobility restrictions and economic activity)
• Destroy small businesses (shown in data)
• Centralize power (massive expansion in spending by Congress and Fed)
• Cause long-run damage far worse than acknowledged (education loss, lockdown-related deaths, etc.)

Ultimately, whether President Trump agreed or not, he went along with lockdowns. That decision became one of the largest government failures in modern history—economically, socially, and institutionally.

Lockdowns didn’t just pause the economy. They rewired the relationship between government and markets, normalizing trillions in new spending, debt monetization by the Federal Reserve, and executive control over daily life.
Nearly every affordability crisis we face today traces back to then.

Why I’m More Concerned Today

Back then, there were still people inside the administration pushing back—arguing for restraint, markets, and limits on government power.

Today, I’m not sure that’s true.
​
It increasingly looks like national conservatives (“natcons”) have captured the MAGA policy agenda and are comfortable with:

• Government picking winners and losers through subsidies and mandates
• Price controls and caps on interest rates for credit cards
• Protectionism as an erratic policy with high tariff rates

• Industrial policy and subsidies for purchase of a share of Intel, use of $200 billion to purchase mortgage backed securities, Trump accounts, Trump RX, and more
• Carveouts and exemptions instead of pro-growth tax policy

That’s not conservatism.

It’s not libertarianism.

And it’s not free-market capitalism.
​
Functionally, it’s progressivism with different branding—and it erodes the institutional framework that made American prosperity possible.

Spending is the Problem: Economic Chain Reaction Too Few People See

Here are the steps for how spending seems benign but it is a malignant cancer metastasizing throughout our lives and livelihoods:

1. Overspending leads to deficits.
2. Deficits add to debt.
3. Debt pushes interest rates higher.
4. Higher rates attract foreign capital, strengthening the dollar.
5. A stronger dollar widens trade deficits (not an issue but some hate it), which politicians then “fix” with tariffs.
6. Higher rates pressure the Fed to buy Treasury debt.
7. Debt monetization fuels inflation, distorting the orders of production while reducing real wages and increasing inequality and poverty.

​This isn’t ideology. It’s arithmetic. And it’s happening now.

What Should Be Done Instead

The hopeful part is that none of this is irreversible.
​
That’s why my work has focused on sustainable budgeting with groups like Americans for Tax Reform, the Club for Growth Foundation, and others. You can see that framework here:

• Let Americans Prosper Project: Ensuring Fiscal Sustainability for America’s Future
• Responsible State Budgets Across the U.S.

States that limit spending growth to population growth plus inflation often run surpluses, cut taxes sustainably, and avoid debt spirals.

Washington should finally learn from them.
​
A real pro-growth agenda would:

• Spend less—now, not later (yes, cutting government spend is pro-growth!)
• End trade protectionism (end tariffs and have the focus on what we can control regarding policies at home instead of trying to change policies abroad)
• Reject price controls (say no to credit card interest rate caps, no to MFN drug pricing, and more)
• Stop picking winners and losers (don’t take shares of private businesses, don’t give $1,000 of taxpayer money to parents with newborns, don’t remove specific things like tips, overtime SS income, interest on car loans from the tax code but instead lower and flatten the income tax rates)

• Unleash supply in housing, energy, healthcare, and capital markets (end Dodd-Frank , CFPB and Section 1033 rule, empower patients, and remove incentives in demand and supply side of housing and other markets)
• Let people in markets work!

A Final, Personal Note—and a Small Ask

I’m not writing this to relitigate the past—or to score political points.

I’m writing it because I’ve seen how quickly good intentions turn into bad outcomes when government power replaces market institutions. I’ve also seen how powerful growth can be when policymakers trust people, markets, and sound rules.

The Trump administration has governed for growth before. It can do so again. But only if it rejects progressive tools—no matter how they’re labeled—and recommits to the institutions that allow people to prosper.
​
As Milton Friedman reminded us, policies should be judged by results, not intentions.

Originally published on Substack. 

​Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) has released his Six Steps to Overhaul the Property Tax System, promising relief from soaring appraisals and runaway local tax hikes. Here’s the plan posted on X.

But let’s be clear: while Abbott’s plan is progress, it’s not the destination. Texans deserve full ownership, not perpetual relief. If leaders don’t show courage now, Texas risks becoming the next California—spending too much, taxing too much, and delivering too little.

The right path is simple but not easy: spend less, tax less, and let Texans prosper.

The Positives: Where Abbott’s Plan Gets It Right

Here are the biggest strengths of his plan:

1. Local Spending Limits. Limiting local government spending to population growth plus inflation (or 3.5%, whichever is lower) would impose much-needed discipline. This mirrors the Sustainable Budget model that spending restraint is the only sustainable form of tax relief.
   
2. Two-Thirds Voter Approval for Property Tax Increases. Giving taxpayers the power to veto big hikes would protect wallets and restore accountability. It’s a guardrail against local governments that treat taxpayers as endless tax revenue sources.
   
3. Appraisal Predictability. Requiring appraisals only once every five years could reduce red tape and uncertainty for homeowners and businesses.
   
4. Lower Appraisal Caps and Broader Coverage. Reducing the homestead appraisal cap from 10% to 3% and extending it to all property types could slow some growth in tax bills.
   
5. Empowering Voters to Roll Back Taxes. Allowing 15% of local voters to trigger rollback elections gives Texans direct power to check government excess.
   
6. Eliminating School Property Taxes for Homeowners. The boldest part—ending school district property taxes through a constitutional amendment—could mark the beginning of true property ownership if done responsibly.

Together, these reforms acknowledge a truth fiscal conservatives have preached for decades: property taxes are too high because government spends too much.

The Concerns: Caution, Complexity, and the Need for Courage

Still, Gov. Abbott’s proposal doesn’t go far enough. It tinkers with symptoms instead of curing the disease.

• Caps don’t cut spending. Local officials will simply find new ways to spend around them. Without stronger constitutional limits and voter-approved enforcement at the state and local levels, these caps risk becoming ceilings to hit, not boundaries to respect.
  
• Appraisal limits distort markets. Capping appraisals shifts the burden onto others when local governments jack up tax rates to spend more. Capping appraisals also incentivizes people to not sell their property thereby reducing available supply in the market resulting in higher values for new property purchases and making it more difficult for first-time buyers, households with lower income, and others.
  
• “Relief” without reform fades fast. Texans have seen this before—record “relief” packages wiped out by higher appraisals and local rate hikes. Relief without restraint is a sugar high; reform must be permanent.
  
• The endgame is missing. Abbott ran on eliminating property taxes outright in 2022, but this new plan sidesteps that vision.

If Texas settles for tinkering, states like Florida and Tennessee—both leaner and bolder—will leave us behind.
To truly secure prosperity, Texas needs more than a six-step patch. It needs a three-step plan for elimination.

The Three-Step Plan to End Property Taxes

Step 1: A Stronger Constitutional Spending Limit.

Texas currently has five state spending limits—but most are riddled with loopholes. We need one simple, enforceable rule: All state and local government spending must grow slower than population growth plus inflation. Exceeding that limit should require at least a two-thirds supermajority vote. Fiscal responsibility isn’t partisan; it’s arithmetic.

Step 2: Use Surpluses to Buy Down Property Taxes.

Every surplus dollar taken from taxpayers should go toward permanent tax rate compression—not new programs. This surplus buydown model already works at the state level, but has been watered down with bad homestead exemption hikes and excessive spending, and could eliminate school district property taxes within a decade if lawmakers hold the line on spending.

Step 3: Replace Property Taxes with a Budget-Neutral Sales Taxes.

This could be matched to accomplish this quickly for school district M&O taxes, replaced with a broader-based 9% state-local sales tax rate (compared with the 8.25% rate today) that captures final consumption—not production.

Local governments should follow by taking the increased sales tax revenue from the base expansion to reduce their property tax rates then have some combination of a local surplus buydown or other paths to eliminate their property taxes (not the state).

This is the path to eliminating all property taxes and real ownership, not another round of “temporary relief.”

The Economic and Moral Case for Elimination
​
Property taxes are fundamentally unjust. They punish investment, discourage homeownership, and treat property not as something you own but something you lease from the state. If you can lose your home for failing to pay, you don’t own it—you’re renting it.

Property taxes also hit the poor hardest. Renters pay through higher rents, workers through lower wages, and entrepreneurs through lost capital. These taxes distort housing markets, drive up costs, and slow growth. More importantly, they violate a moral truth: once you’ve paid for your property, you shouldn’t have to rent it every year.

The solution isn’t more carveouts, exemptions, or political “caps.” It’s sustainable budgeting and a modern, consumption-based tax system designed for the 21st century.

The Moment for Boldness

Governor Abbott’s plan moves the debate in the right direction—but Texas must go further. “Relief” isn’t enough. Texans want ownership. They want simplicity, transparency, and a government that spends less so they can save, invest, and build more. If the governor pushes forward boldly—pairing sustainable budgeting with surplus buydowns and a budget-neutral tax swap (not revenue neutral to emphasize less spending)—Texas could become the model for every other state.

If he stops short, our tax burden will keep creeping upward, our debt will keep rising, and our competitiveness will keep slipping. Texas will keep looking a little more like California and a lot less like the freedom-focused Texas we love.

Spending less must be the rallying cry for every fiscal conservative, policymaker, and taxpayer who wants Texas to lead again. Spend Less, Prosper More isn’t just a motto—it’s the only way to preserve ownership and opportunity for generations to come.
​
For more on how Texas and other states can end property taxes and restore true ownership, visit my writings.

Originally published on Substack. 

​The Tax Foundation’s recently released 2026 State Tax Competitiveness Index ranks Louisiana 31st in the nation, a middling position that reflects the state’s economic climate. While Louisiana has taken modest steps to simplify its tax code, government spending continues to grow faster than the economy—and that’s what keeps the state stuck in neutral.
Across the country, the story is becoming clear. States that maintain a limited and predictable government are the ones that attract new residents, jobs, and businesses. Those that allow spending to balloon are watching people and investment leave.

The Real Problem: Spending, Not Just Taxes

Louisiana’s tax structure looks competitive in some areas, but high and complex spending patterns undermine those gains. The state ranks 10th in corporate taxes and 15th in individual income taxes after its 2024 reforms. However, it ranks 50th—dead last—in sales-tax simplicity due to its fragmented local collection system. Property taxes are moderate at 22nd, but they continue to climb as local budgets expand.

The real obstacle is not insufficient revenue; it’s a lack of fiscal restraint. When state spending grows faster than population growth plus inflation, taxpayers lose purchasing power, and the private economy—the engine of prosperity—shrinks. Every dollar the government spends must first be taken from someone who earned it. The longer this pattern persists, the more challenging it becomes for families and businesses to plan, invest, and thrive.

Learning from Our Neighbor: What Mississippi Is Doing Right
​
Louisiana’s neighbor, Mississippi, is taking a disciplined and forward-looking approach. Under the Build Up Mississippi Act, enacted in 2022, the state is phasing out its individual income tax through a series of scheduled rate reductions. The top rate will fall to 3 percent by 2030—a goal Louisiana has already achieved—but then further cuts will occur automatically if revenues and reserves meet defined benchmarks. Louisiana has no such automatic trigger or plan to achieve further reductions. In fact, earlier this year, state senators balked at a proposal to lower the rate to 2.75%. Analyses from the Mississippi Policy Center and ALEC indicate that Mississippi’s  forward-looking plan fosters certainty for employers and workers who can anticipate the direction of policy.

That clarity matters. Expectations shape behavior. When people know tax burdens will decline, they invest more, relocate more confidently, and hire more aggressively. It’s not simply about the current rate; it’s about the direction of policy. Mississippi is communicating that its government intends to grow less so that its people can grow more.

What Louisiana Should Do Next

If Louisiana wants to rise in competitiveness and attract long-term investment, it needs two straightforward reforms:

1. Cap government growth. Adopt a rule that limits the state’s annual budget growth to less than the combined rate of population and inflation. This approach keeps the government aligned with taxpayers’ ability to pay, allowing surpluses to build naturally without the need for higher taxes.
2. Establish a clear path to lower income tax rates. Once spending is under control, dedicate future surpluses to permanent income tax rate reductions. Louisiana’s current top individual income tax rate is lower than Mississippi’s, yet Mississippi’s trajectory is clearer. Direction and discipline are what create growth, not merely rate differences on paper.

The Bigger Lesson

Economic freedom is not just an accounting exercise—it’s a moral principle. Prosperity occurs when individuals, not bureaucracies, determine how to allocate their earnings. States that respect that truth, such as Mississippi, Texas, Florida, and Tennessee, are outperforming those that treat government as the primary driver of opportunity.
​
Louisiana can join that group, but only if it confronts its spending habits and sends a credible signal that tax burdens will continue to fall. Fiscal restraint and predictable policy are the cornerstones of growth. The path to prosperity is simple: spend less, tax less, and trust people to make their own choices. That’s how Louisiana—and every state—can let people prosper.

Government Spending Is The Problem

The late, great economist Milton Friedman said, "The real problem is government spending." This is true as spending comes before taxes or regulations. If people didn't form a government or politicians didn’t create new programs, then there would be no need for government spending and no need for taxes. And if there were no government spending or taxes to fund spending, then there would be no one to create or enforce regulations. 

​While this might sound like a utopian paradise, which I desire, there are essential, limited roles for governments outlined in constitutions and laws. Of course, most governments are doing much more than providing limited roles that preserve life, liberty, and property. This is why I have long been working diligently for decades to enact strong fiscal rules, including a spending limit, for federal, state, and local governments. My calling is to "let people prosper," as effectively limiting government support promotes more liberty and, therefore, more opportunities to flourish.

Empirical research underscores the importance of spending restraint over tax hikes in promoting economic growth. Studies by economists Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna, John Taylor, Casey Mulligan, and others have consistently shown that fiscal adjustments based on reducing government spending are more effective at fostering economic growth than those based on raising taxes.

Fortunately, multiple state think tanks have championed this sound budgeting approach through what they've called either the Responsible, Conservative, or Sustainable State Budget. I recently worked with Americans for Tax Reform to publish the Sustainable Budget Project, which provides spending comparisons and other valuable information for every state. This groundbreaking approach was recently outlined in my co-authored op-ed with Grover Norquist of ATR in The Wall Street Journal and has been discussed at NRO, the Club for Growth Foundation, and elsewhere.

When Did This Budget Approach Begin?

I began this approach in 2013 with my former colleagues at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, focusing on the Conservative Texas Budget. The approach is a fiscal rule based on an appropriations limit that covers as much of the budget as possible, ideally the entire budget, with a maximum amount based on the rate of population growth plus inflation and a supermajority (two-thirds) vote to exceed it. A version of this approach was initiated in Colorado in 1992 with the passage of their Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), which key individuals like Dr. Barry Poulson and others championed  (picture below is from a road sign in Texas).

Why Population Growth Plus Inflation?

​While there are many measures to use for a spending growth limit, the rate of population growth plus inflation provides the best reasonable measure of the average taxpayer's ability to pay for government spending without excessively crowding out their productive activities. It is essential to look at this from the taxpayer’s perspective rather than the appropriator’s view, given that taxpayers fund every dollar that appropriators redistribute from the private sector. Population growth, combined with inflation, is also a stable metric that reduces uncertainty for taxpayers (and appropriators), essentially freezing inflation-adjusted per capita government spending over time. ​

The research in this space is clear that the best fiscal rule is a spending limit based on the rate of population growth plus inflation, rather than gross state product, personal income, or other growth rates. Population growth, combined with inflation, typically grows more slowly than these different rates, allowing more money to remain in the productive private sector, where it belongs.

To get technical for a moment, personal income growth and gross state product growth are essentially equivalent to population growth plus inflation plus productivity growth. There's no reasonable consideration that the government is more productive over time, so that term would be zero, leaving population growth plus inflation. And suppose you consider the productivity growth in the private sector. In that case, more money should be allocated to the more productive sector at the margin for the highest rate of return, leaving just population growth and inflation.

Population growth plus inflation becomes the best measure, no matter how you look at it.

Given the high inflation recently, it is wise to use the average growth rate of population growth plus inflation over several years to smooth out the increased volatility (ATR's Sustainable Budget Project uses the average rate over the three years before a session year). And this rate of population growth plus inflation should be a ceiling, not a target, as governments should be appropriating less than this limit. Ideally, governments should freeze or reduce spending at all levels of government to provide more room for tax relief, less regulation, and more money in taxpayers' pockets.

Overview of Conservative Texas Budget Approach

This approach was partially introduced into state law in Texas in 2021 with Senate Bill 1336, as the state already has a spending limit in its constitution. The bill improved the limit to cover all general revenue ("consolidated general revenue") or 55% of the total budget rather than just 45% previously, base the growth limit on the rate of population growth times inflation instead of personal income growth, and raise the vote from a simple majority to three-fifths of both chambers to exceed it instead of a simple majority. 

Some improvements should be made to the recent statutory spending limit change in Texas, such as enshrining it in the constitution and adjusting the growth rate to reflect population growth plus inflation, rather than population growth times inflation calculated by (1+pop)*(1+inf). This limit is one of the strongest in the nation, as historically the gold standard for a spending limit of Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) has been watered down over the years by its courts and legislators, as it currently covers just 43% of the budget instead of the original 67%. 

Unfortunately, the weaknesses in Texas' expenditure limits, including the weak constitutional spending limit and the consolidated general revenue spending limit, have contributed to excessive spending in recent years. The table below highlights the Texas House and Senate budgets for the latest 2026-27 biennium. The Legislative Budget Board's Reported Budget compares spending to appropriations, which is like comparing apples to oranges. Both are expenditure types, but appropriations are at the beginning or during the budget period, while spending is at the end. The table also includes the Budget Since 2024-25 with an apples-to-apples comparison between initial appropriations in each biennium. The budget since 2023, which uses this consistent comparison from 2022-23 to the proposed 2026-27 appropriations, shows that appropriations of state funds are up 42.6%. These are historically significant increases in such a short period and are a primary reason for concern. 

The figure below shows how the growth in Texas’ biennial budget was cut by 13.3% from 12% to 10.4% after the creation of the Conservative Texas Budget in 2014, which first influenced the 2015 Legislature when crafting the 2016-17 budget, along with changes in the state’s governor (Gov. Greg Abbott), lieutenant governor (Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick), and some legislators. ​The 10.4% average growth rate of biennial appropriations since 2016 was below the 9.3% biennial average rate of population growth plus inflation, which was driven substantially higher after the latest 2024-25 budget that is well above this key metric (previously, the biennial budget growth was 5.2% compared with 9.3% in the rate of population growth plus inflation). ​

Making matters worse, the growth of the budget has increased substantially faster than population growth plus inflation in Texas since Republicans gained their first trifecta in control of the Governor's mansion, Senate, and House in 2003. Their first budget was in 2004-05, which the work of House Appropriations Chairman Talmadge Heflin (one of my wonderful mentors) helped address by addressing a budget shortfall without raising taxes but through spending cuts and restraint. The figure above highlights how the budget has grown nearly 30% faster than the average taxpayer's ability to pay for it over this period. The figure above illustrates how these excesses have accumulated over time, resulting in massive spending and substantial tax burdens on Texans. There is more work to do!​

Sustainable Budget Work With Other States, ATR, and CFGF

When I returned to the Texas Public Policy Foundation in May 2020, I sought to regain a sense of freedom during the COVID-19 pandemic and be closer to family. I started an effort to work on this sound budgeting approach with other state think tanks. This contributed to my working with many fantastic people who are trying to restrain government spending at the state, local, and federal levels. Here are my latest data on the federal and state budgets as part of American for Tax Reform's Sustainable Budget Project and a recent publication by the Club for Growth Foundation.

​From 2015 to 2024, the following happened:

Federal spending skyrocketed 88.0%—more than three times faster than the 27.6% increase in population and inflation.

• If Congress had restrained spending to this sustainable growth rate:
  • The federal government would’ve spent $2.2 trillion less in 2024.
  • The national debt would’ve fallen by $1.8 trillion instead of growing by $14.3 trillion.
  • Cumulative debt since 2005 would have risen by $2.5 trillion, not $21.7 trillion.
• That’s trillions of dollars that could’ve stayed in people’s pockets or been invested in future prosperity, not siphoned off to fund bloated bureaucracies and waste.

Aggregate state spending, by the 50 state governments, excluding funds received from the federal government, increased by 54.2% during that decade. 

• Had their spending grown by the maximum rate of 27.6% in population growth plus inflation from 2015 to 2024:
  • State governments would’ve spent $328 billion less than the $1.90 trillion in 2024.
  • Cumulative spending across that decade would have been $1.3 trillion less than what was spent, resulting in more money in people’s pockets.

Result: When combining federal and state overspending, Americans lost over $2.5 trillion in 2024 and more than $13.4 trillion in excess taxes and debt across the decade.

I hope that if we can get enough state think tanks to promote this budgeting approach, get this approach put into constitutions and statutes, and use it to limit local government spending as well, there will be plenty of momentum to provide sustainable, substantial tax relief and eventually impose a fiscal rule of a spending limit on the federal budget. This is an uphill battle, but I believe it is necessary to preserve liberty and provide more opportunities that let people prosper.

​Sustainable State Budget Revolution Across The Country

Below are the states and think tanks with which I'm working on this sustainable budget revolution. You can find an overview of this budgeting approach in Louisiana, which should be applied elsewhere. 

Here are the latest efforts:

1. Americans for Tax Reform released the Sustainable Budget Project, which compares every state's spending with population growth and inflation, along with valuable comparisons and data for each state.
2. Alaska: Alaska Policy Forum released the Responsible Alaska Budget.
3. Colorado: The Independence Institute recently released the Sustainable Colorado Budget.
4. Florida: James Madison Institute released the Conservative Florida Budget.
5. Iowa: Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation released the Conservative Iowa Budget.
6. Kansas: Kansas Policy Institute released the Responsible Kansas Budget.
7. Louisiana: Pelican Institute released the Responsible Louisiana Budget, see comparison of RLB with ATR's Sustainable Budget project.
8. Michigan: Mackinac Center released the Sustainable Michigan Budget.
9. Mississippi: Mississippi Center for Public Policy released the Responsible Mississippi Budget.
10. Montana: Frontier Institute released a Conservative Montana Budget and a report on Responsible Local budgets.
11. South Carolina: SC Policy Council released the South Carolina Sustainable Budget. Oconee County Council in South Carolina employed this approach and submitted its sustainable budget. 
12. Tennessee: Beacon Center released the Conservative Tennessee Budget.
13. Texas: Texas Public Policy Foundation released the Conservative Texas Budget and Responsible Local Budgets. Texans for Fiscal Responsibility released a similar metric.
14. Federal: The Let Americans Prosper Project, along with the Responsible American Budget, aims to rein in federal government spending to support fiscal sanity in Washington, D.C., which is essential for the future of our country.

​
If you're interested in pursuing this initiative in your state, please don't hesitate to contact me.

For more details, check out these write-ups on this issue by Grover Norquist and me at WSJ, Dan Mitchell at International Liberty, and The Economist.

Originally published on Substack. 

How do states compare in taxes? Jared Walczak just co-authored the Tax Foundation’s 2026 State Tax Competitiveness Index, and the message is clear: tax competition matters! But spending is to blame for high taxes.

States with simple, broad-based, and low tax systems are winning. Those that cling to complex, high-rate, carveout-laden tax codes are falling behind. In short, the states that trust people to prosper are leading America’s economic race.
​
At the top of the 2026 rankings are Wyoming (#1), South Dakota (#2), and New Hampshire (#3) — all notable for not taxing individual income.

At the bottom: New York (#50), New Jersey (#49), and California (#48), where excessive taxes drive people and businesses away.

Texas, with its strong no-income-tax model, ranked #7 overall, just below Montana (#6). Property taxes in Texas, however, remain an anchor on competitiveness — ranked 38th among the states. Anyone who’s tried to buy a home in Austin or Dallas knows the frustration: it’s not freedom if you’re effectively renting your home from the government through endless tax bills.

🔍 What Makes a State Competitive?

The Index evaluates five major areas of each state’s tax structure:

1. Corporate income tax
2. Individual income tax
3. Sales tax
4. Property tax
5. Unemployment insurance tax

​The key isn’t just how much a state collects — it’s how it collects it. A competitive tax code should be neutral, simple, and predictable, encouraging investment and innovation rather than penalizing growth or distorting decisions.

The top-ranked states tend to either lack one or more major taxes or maintain flat, broad-based, low-rate systems. The bottom-ranked states suffer from complexity, narrow bases, and punitive rates that erode opportunity and fiscal health.

💸 Texas and the Path Forward

Texas earns high marks for having no personal income tax, but its property tax burden — ranking 38th nationwide — reveals a major policy challenge. The problem isn’t valuation; it’s spending. Local government growth has outpaced population growth plus inflation for decades, fueling tax hikes even amid record state surpluses.

As I’ve emphasized across my writings and policy work with multiple states, sustainable reform requires spending restraint first. By limiting spending growth to less than population plus inflation and using surplus funds to buy down school district property tax rates, Texas can move toward phasing out property taxes altogether — responsibly and permanently.

This isn’t a radical idea. It’s the next frontier of fiscal reform — one that would strengthen property rights, make homeownership attainable, and ensure long-term prosperity.

🚦 The National Picture

These rankings are more than bragging rights; they map the economic migration of the 21st century.

• Florida and Tennessee continue to attract families and businesses with growth-friendly tax climates.
• California, New York, and New Jersey are losing hundreds of thousands of residents each year.
• The gap between top and bottom states is widening, and not because of weather — it’s because of policy.

People vote with their feet, and the data prove they’re moving toward economic freedom, not away from it.

🧭 The Bottom Line

Tax competition works because it’s rooted in human nature. When people are free to choose, governments must compete for them — not exploit them.

The states embracing that truth are building durable prosperity. Those ignoring it are doubling down on failure.
​
If policymakers want a blueprint for growth, it’s simple: limit spending, simplify taxes, and trust people — not politicians — with their money.
​
That’s how to let people prosper.