Originally posted at Texans for Fiscal Responsibility.

As Congress revives the misnamed Credit Card Competition Act and state legislatures push bills to regulate swipe fees, policymakers are quietly setting the stage for a major disruption in how Americans access credit. These proposals aim to cap interchange fees—those small charges behind every card swipe—but the consequences won’t be small.

Interchange fees may not make headlines, but they help keep the modern credit ecosystem running. On a typical $100 transaction, around $2 in interchange fees flows from merchants to the banks and networks that manage fraud protection, secure payments, and rewards programs. In return, consumers get safer transactions and access to credit, and merchants get more customers.

The bills in a few states, like Texas’s HB 4124, which died this year, aim to ban interchange fees on tax and tip portions of transactions. That might sound like a narrow carve-out. But it’s not. It’s a price control, and price controls are costly. Like a leak in the hull, they start small and quickly sink the ship.

I don’t come at this from theory. I grew up in a lower-income single-mom household in South Houston, Texas. My dad had epilepsy and received disability income. My mom dropped out in the tenth grade and worked hard to make ends meet. We didn’t qualify for most welfare, and credit cards were the fallback when times got tough. My mom didn’t use them for luxuries—she used them for groceries, utility bills, and school clothes. That access mattered.

Now imagine her in today’s regulatory environment, where policymakers treat credit like a vice rather than a necessity. The Credit Card Competition Act would force issuers to use multiple payment networks, undermining fraud security and disrupting rewards programs, like the Chase Southwest card I use for travel with my family. Meanwhile, proposals from Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to cap credit card interest rates at 10% would cut off millions of higher-risk borrowers, disproportionately harming those with the fewest alternatives.

This all echoes the failed logic of the Durbin Amendment of 2010. That policy capped debit card fees and promised consumer savings. Instead, no-charge checking accounts were cut in half, debit rewards disappeared, and according to the Government Accountability Office, less than 2% of retailers passed on any savings. The real beneficiaries were the big-box stores, not everyday Americans.

Supporters claim they’re protecting consumers. But who are they really protecting when 22% of Americans are unbanked or underbanked, according to the Federal Reserve? When you price credit below its risk, lenders stop offering it. That leaves working families to turn to payday lenders or pawn shops—or worse, to go without.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve—the very institution regulators want to give more power over payment systems—has lost more than $200 billion in operating losses since 2022 due to its mismanagement of interest rate risk. And now it wants to fix the “problem” of interchange fees?

If lawmakers genuinely want to improve access and competition, they should focus on reducing barriers for smaller banks and fintech innovators, not micromanaging transaction fees or capping risk-based interest rates. These reforms would encourage real competition, protect consumers, and avoid the failed playbook of regulatory overreach.

Milton Friedman once warned that “one of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” We should heed that wisdom now more than ever.

The intention to lower swipe fees and protect consumers is good in a soundbite. However, the result will be fewer rewards, higher costs, and less access, especially for working Americans. That’s not financial protection. That’s economic sabotage.

​Today marks the conclusion of the 89th Regular Session of the Texas Legislature, and what a session it's been. Once renowned for its commitment to pro-freedom and pro-growth policies, Texas now grapples with decisions that challenge its conservative principles. This session has strayed from the fiscal conservatism Texans expect, from expanding corporate handouts to unprecedented spending. The people of Texas deserve better. It's time to return to the pro-growth policies that have enabled the state to thrive and lead the nation. On the federal front, the passage of the “One Big, Beautiful Bill” in the House reveals a similar mix of commendable and concerning developments. How can we reconcile the benefits of tax cuts with the drawbacks of increased government spending?

In this episode, I delve into these significant legislative moves and assess their impact on the nation's economic health. Let's examine both the positive and negative aspects to gain a clear understanding of where things stand. 

You can catch the full episode on YouTube, Apple Podcast, or Spotify.
Visit: VanceGinn.com
Subscribe: VanceGinn.Substack.com

(0:00) - Texas Legislature's 89th Session: A Mixed Bag
(6:22) - The Good, Bad, and Ugly of Texas Legislative Outcomes
(12:04) - Market Health Update: Overspending and Economic Consequences
(17:56) - Housing Market Challenges and Solutions

Originally published at Substack. Get the tables for these at the Substack link.

​Taxpayers should be alarmed as the Texas Legislature prepares to vote on the final 2026–27 budget.

What started as competing proposals from the Senate and House has ended in a bloated conference committee budget that dramatically expands state government beyond what key measures like population growth and inflation would justify.
Despite claims of fiscal conservatism, this final product mirrors the spending habits of progressive states like California more than it does the limited government model that made Texas an economic powerhouse.

Here's a breakdown of how we got here, why it matters, and why this budget deserves a firm rejection.

Comparing the Budgets: Senate, House, and Conference

Using a consistent apples-to-apples comparison of appropriations to appropriations, the growth from the 2022–23 budget to the 2026–27 budget is staggering. Since then, the maximum growth rate of population growth plus inflation has been 20%. Yet each version of the new budget far exceeds that:

Senate Budget:

• State appropriations increased from $166.3 billion to $236.9 billion — a 42.5% increase.
• All funds appropriations rose from $264.8 billion to $336.1 billion — a 26.9% increase.
• Even excluding tax relief, state appropriations still grew 30.4%.
• GRR funds increased by $35.2 billion, or 28.0%.

House Budget:

• State appropriations increased from $166.3 billion to $237.4 billion — a 42.8% increase.
• All funds appropriations rose from $264.8 billion to $337.4 billion — a 27.4% increase.
• Excluding tax relief, state appropriations still rose 30.7%.
• GRR funds increased by $35.2 billion, or 28.1%.

Conference (Final) Budget:

• State appropriations increased from $166.3 billion to $237.1 billion — a 42.6% increase.
• All funds appropriations increased from $264.8 billion to $338.0 billion — a 27.6% increase.
• Even excluding tax relief, state appropriations still grew by 30.5%.
• GRR funds increased by $31.8 billion, or 25.4%.

Each budget proposal got bigger, not smaller, throughout the process. Instead of aligning spending with population and inflation growth, lawmakers escalated the budget with every iteration—an unsustainable trend.

Major Spending Increases by Budget Area
The 2026-27 budget reveals unsustainable growth across nearly every article of government. In state funds, Article II for Health and Human Services is up 30.4% over 2022–23, with an additional 5.4% increase from 2024–25. Article III, covering Education, soared by 42.4%, with public education up 43.2% and higher education up 40.2% since 2022–23. Even areas like Article V for Public Safety grew by nearly 60%.

Looking at all funds, the trends are equally alarming. Article III rose by 40.2%, including a 38.5% increase in public education and a 45.3% increase in higher education. Health and Human Services (Article II) grew by $18.8 billion or 21.6%. Even Regulatory functions (Article VIII) increased by over 800% over the 2022–23 budget.

This is not a conservative budget—it’s a big government expansion.

The False Justification: Temporary Tax Relief
Supporters of the budget may claim that the spike in appropriations is justified because of historic property tax relief. But even after backing out tax relief, the budget increases are well above any reasonable threshold. In short, the relief is temporary, but the spending is permanent. This sleight of hand will lead to even higher property tax burdens in future years if spending is not restrained.

The Legislative Budget Board claims $51 billion in tax relief, which is a misleading total. It includes maintaining past tax cuts and contingent new ones, but does not include any structural restraint to prevent property taxes from rising again. There are no local spending limits or end to loopholes to property tax levy limits, while reducing the rollback rate to the no-new-revenue rate, so property taxes will keep going up. This is not reform—it’s an expensive illusion.

Bigger Than the Numbers: A Progressive Budget in Disguise
This budget doesn’t reflect Texas values. It reflects progressive budget ideology:

• Massive increases in state-funded programs with little accountability;
• A $13.6 billion increase in Foundation School Program spending;
• $82.6 billion for Medicaid, up $6.2 billion over the last biennium;
• $39.9 billion for TxDOT and $3.4 billion for border security;
• $10.4 billion on behavioral health, including $6.5 billion outside Medicaid;
• Higher education formula hikes, expanded CPS and TRS benefits, and $12.5 billion in 2024–25 supplemental appropriations.

Worse, this budget would further worsen the deterioration of fiscal discipline under Governor Abbott’s watch. For much of the last decade, there was at least some effort at spending restraint. But this budget blows through those limits. Since Abbott's first budget in 2016–17, Texas' all-funds budget has grown far faster than population plus inflation.

In fact, since the first Republican trifecta in 2003, Texas looks to overspend by nearly $60 billion more in the 2026-27 budget than what would have occurred had budgets followed pop+inf.

This is unacceptable and underscores how this budget weakens the Governor’s legacy of restraint.

A Warning About November: Constitutional Amendments
As if this weren’t enough, lawmakers have lined up a slate of new constitutional amendments for the November ballot—each proposing to dedicate billions more of taxpayer money for favored projects outside the already weak spending limit. Voters should reject these amendments.

These dedicated funds are deliberately structured to bypass the state’s current spending restraints. This is a transparent effort to bake big-government growth into the Constitution. If successful, it will further erode the Legislature’s ability to prioritize, leading to budget chaos.

The solution? Strengthen the constitutional spending limit to cover at least all state and local spending, ideally all funds, and tie them to a maximum growth rate of population plus inflation, with no loopholes and a three-fourths supermajority vote required to exceed it with surpluses returned through lower tax rates. Anything less invites more backdoor spending and fiscal irresponsibility.

Why Lawmakers Should Reject the Budget
Texas lawmakers have a choice: rubber-stamp a budget that entrenches government growth and betrays fiscal conservatives, or stand firm and demand better. This budget fails the test of stewardship. It overcommits future legislatures and taxpayers. It locks in massive baseline growth that will be difficult to reverse.
​
And it sends a dangerous message: that the Texas model is no longer one of limited government, but of California-style excess wrapped in conservative rhetoric.

Texans deserve better. Lawmakers should reject the conference budget. If not, Governor Abbott should veto it.

Originally published at the Austin American-Statesman. 

Texas conservatives are rightly fed up with political bias in banking and Washington’s failure to stop so-called "debanking," which has targeted some bank customers across the political spectrum in Texas and nationwide. However, the root issue isn’t banks acting independently, but rather federal regulatory pressure and political mandates that distort market signals.
​
The Texas Legislature's answer, Senate Bill 946, misfires and risks harming the very consumers and community banks it claims to protect. The remedy, instead, should come from Washington.

SB 946, which has passed the Texas Senate and is pending in the House, would prohibit financial institutions from denying services based on a customer’s political or religious beliefs. While that sounds straightforward, it injects state-level micromanagement into a deeply interconnected national banking system that serves Texans and customers nationwide.

Texas has earned a reputation as one of the best states to start and grow a business by avoiding overregulation, keeping costs low and letting competition, not bureaucracy, drive better outcomes. SB 946 runs counter to that legacy. It would increase compliance costs and weaken already-stretched community banks that may end up with less to lend after spending even more on compliance.

Conservatives should not create new tools for regulation based on an agenda.

If one accepts the idea that state governments can dictate who banks must do business with, they lose the moral high ground. What stops California from passing a law requiring banks to deny services to pro-life groups, gun manufacturers or religious schools? This approach risks turning financial institutions into battlegrounds for political agendas.

Texans should care because a patchwork of conflicting state-level banking rules will reduce consumer choice, raise fees and shrink the number of banks willing to operate across multiple states. Unlike Wall Street giants, Texas-based community banks can’t afford teams of lawyers to navigate a maze of conflicting regulations.

The Republican-led Congress, with support from President Donald Trump and led by U.S. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, is advancing the Financial Institution Regulatory Modernization (FIRM) Act to curb government-driven debanking by removing "reputational risk" from regulatory scrutiny and establishing a fair access standard nationwide. This is a constitutionally grounded and targeted response to a legitimate problem in interstate commerce.

Texas state Sen. Tan Parker's resolution in support of the FIRM Act is a welcome and productive step forward. It recognizes that banking is a national issue requiring a consistent federal solution, not a patchwork of conflicting state laws. His leadership outlines the right path forward: backing federal action that restores fairness and access without overregulating the private sector.

Usually, I don’t support federal solutions, but this is one of the rare cases where it’s both appropriate and necessary. Banking is clearly interstate commerce, and a single, minimal regulatory standard is far better than a state-by-state patchwork that creates confusion and restricts access. That’s how we protect choice, encourage competition, and allow markets — not politics — to work.

Banking isn’t just another industry. It underpins everything from mortgages and payroll to national security and sanctions against hostile actors. Fragmenting this system will only increase costs and reduce access to resources. We’ve seen what happens in the insurance market when each state imposes mandates: higher costs, fewer choices and less innovation.

It’s also important to acknowledge that not every debanking claim is politically motivated. Some accounts are closed for valid reasons, such as suspected fraud, money laundering or other compliance risks. Banks need discretion to manage risk, and SB 946 could undermine that by imposing overly broad restrictions. What we need instead is transparency and consistent, fair rules that protect both consumers and the integrity of the financial system.

Conservatives should resist the temptation to regulate out of frustration. The best response to ideological banking isn’t more mandates—it’s reinforcing market competition and supporting innovative, limited federal reforms where constitutionally appropriate.

Let’s not undermine the important work already underway in Washington to restore trust and order to the financial system. Texas should lead with principle, not reaction.