​The latest economic data tells a concerning story.

From a weakening labor market and rising healthcare costs to slowing growth and increased uncertainty, the warning signs are becoming harder to ignore. These trends are not accidental. They are the result of policy choices that have expanded the government’s role, distorted incentives, and increased complexity across key sectors of the economy.

In this episode of This Week’s Economy, we examine how these forces are playing out across jobs, Medicare, regulation, trade, and tax policy—and why they all point to the same conclusion: policy matters, and bad policy carries real costs.

The critical question is whether leaders will course-correct before these challenges deepen.

👉 Watch or listen to the full episode and explore more analysis with show notes at vanceginn.substack.com.

Originally published on Substack. 

How should policy folks read Tuesday’s primaries?

Maybe the way families experience government: not as a scoreboard, but as a preview of what comes next.
Elections choose candidates. Budgets choose outcomes.

If the policy output is higher costs, higher taxes, and more government control, voters will not care who won the primary. They will care that their taxes keep rising.

Across Texas, North Carolina, and Arkansas, the same governing reality shows up in different forms.

Tax relief and economic opportunity depend on one discipline that almost nobody wants to talk about when the cameras are on: spending restraint. Without it, every “conservative” promise becomes temporary and every affordability problem gets worse.

Texas is giving lawmakers a clear direction on taxes and spending

Republicans are headed to a tight May U.S. Senate runoff between Sen. John Cornyn and Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Democrats nominated State Rep. James Talarico for Senate after Rep. Jasmine Crockett conceded.

For governor, Gov. Greg Abbott won the Republican nomination and Rep. Gina Hinojosa won the Democratic nomination, setting up November.

These outcomes are also reflected in the official Texas Secretary of State results.

Those races, and others like former State Senator Don Huffines winning the race for Texas Comptroller over Kelly Hancock, State Rep. Brian Harrison winning big over big-government candidates, are important.

But the most important signal did not come from a candidate. It came from the Republican primary ballot propositions, which operate like a “voter memo” to lawmakers.

In plain terms, Texas GOP primary voters endorsed the idea that eliminating school district property taxes should be pursued through spending reductions.

That wording matters because it answers the central fiscal question: Do we want tax relief that is structurally funded, or tax relief that depends on temporary money and political will?

The proposition language and broader ballot context are explained well in KUT’s guide to the propositions and the Texas Standard breakdown.

This dovetails with Gov. Abbott elevating school district property tax elimination as a priority heading into the 2027 legislative session. The policy test for lawmakers is not whether they can announce “relief.” The test is whether they can make relief permanent.

Why is that hard? Because school district maintenance and operations taxes are a major funding stream, roughly 40%+ of total local property taxes in Texas.

Replacing them with state dollars immediately or over time without a binding spending limit on state and local government will turn a popular reform into a long-term fiscal trap.

There is also a second, equally important reality for Texas policymakers. State property tax relief can be offset locally if cities, counties, and other taxing entities continue expanding spending and debt. That is why the propositions focusing on spending reductions and voter checks are so important. The public instinct is correct.

People want government to live within limits and stop backfilling relief with higher local burdens.

This is the framework behind my work on Texas fiscal policy: pair surplus-driven property tax compression or buy-down with a strict spending limit at both the state and local levels.

Relief without limits is temporary. Limits make relief durable. The broader blueprint is in my writings.

North Carolina is a reminder that competitiveness can be lost quickly

North Carolina’s primaries produced a high-profile U.S. Senate matchup between Roy Cooper and Michael Whatley.

That matters nationally because Senate control shapes whether Washington pursues any serious spending restraint or continues drifting toward higher debt and larger federal reach.

But there is also a state-level lesson that policymakers should not miss.

North Carolina has been attracting people and investment because it is relatively more competitive than many alternatives.

That advantage is fragile. If spending grows faster than the private economy, taxes eventually rise, regulations expand, and affordability deteriorates.

Growth becomes a reason for more government instead of an opportunity to lock in pro-growth reform.
For families, the lived experience of this drift is not abstract. It is higher housing costs, higher energy costs, and fewer options.

For policymakers, the fix is still the same. Control spending growth. Reduce barriers to building and production. Keep tax relief tied to fiscal discipline.

Arkansas shows what steady policy looks like

Arkansas had a calmer primary, with Sen. Tom Cotton advancing without drama.

The bigger lesson is not the headline, it is the pattern. States that keep taxes moving down and spending growth under control tend to build momentum that compounds.

Businesses respond to predictability. Families respond to affordability. Voters often reward results when they can feel them.

What policymakers should take away

This is the through-line across all three states.

1. Primaries pick candidates. Budgets pick outcomes.
2. Tax relief is only durable when spending is restrained.
3. Local fiscal growth can erase state relief unless the local spending loophole is closed.
4. When government grows faster than taxpayers can pay, affordability deteriorates and trust collapses.

Closing and call to action

If lawmakers want these primaries to mean something, they should treat them as permission to do the hard part. Put enforceable limits on state and local spending growth. Make tax relief structural, not temporary.

In Texas specifically, the Republican primary propositions provided a clear direction: if you want to eliminate school district property taxes, do it by reducing spending growth and locking in discipline before the next budget cycle resets the baseline.

For policymakers and staff, I welcome the chance to discuss model language for spending limits, surplus-driven tax relief, and closing the local loophole so relief actually sticks.
​
For media, I am available for interviews and background discussions on what these primary results signal for fiscal policy in Texas, North Carolina, and Arkansas.

​Economic policy affects more than just spreadsheets. When leaders fail to control spending, undermine markets, or delay hard decisions, families feel it through higher prices, fewer opportunities, and slower growth. 

With rising concerns about affordability, the consequences of poor economic policy aren’t abstract — they shape how people live, work, and plan for the future. Price controls, restrictive immigration policies, and higher taxes don’t solve these problems. They make them worse.

In the episode of This Week’s Economy, we examine what happens when policymakers ignore first principles. I break down why recurring shutdowns expose deeper budgeting failures, how states are approaching tax relief and economic freedom, what a new pick for Fed chair could mean for inflation and stability, and why labor shortages and immigration policy matter for long-term growth. Across each issue, the lesson is the same: prosperity follows discipline, sound incentives, and trust in markets — not political shortcuts.

Catch the full episode on YouTube, Apple Podcast, or Spotify, and visit my website at vanceginn.com for show notes and more information about my work at Ginn Economic Consulting.

​How property taxes undermine homeownership—and what states and localities can do to fix it.

Affordability is a major issue for voters. Families are feeling squeezed by higher housing costs, rising insurance premiums, and everyday expenses that often outpace income. For many Americans, the question is no longer just whether they can buy a home, but whether they can afford to keep the one they are in.

Across the country, states are beginning to confront one overlooked driver of the housing affordability crisis: property taxes. 

From proposals to cap assessments to more ambitious efforts to reduce or even eliminate property taxes, lawmakers are reexamining a tax that quietly raises housing costs annually.

In This Week’s Economy, we’ll look at how property taxes undermine true homeownership, why they fall hardest on those least able to pay, and what meaningful reform would require if states and localities want to restore affordability and let people prosper. 

Check out the show notes at ⁠vanceginn.substack.com⁠ and more information on my work at Ginn Economic Consulting at ⁠vanceginn.com⁠. Thank you for watching. Please subscribe and share now!

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.