 Originally posted at Pelican Institute.
Congress is moving fast on a sweeping package known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB)—and it could have real implications for Louisiana. While the OBBB includes some beneficial provisions, especially by extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts, the bill overall fails to deliver the kind of fiscal discipline and pro-growth reform America needs. If anything, it reflects a dangerous continuation of Washington’s deficit spending spree. That’s a warning sign for Louisianans who want to see lower taxes, more opportunity, and a more responsible federal government. The OBBB: What It Gets Right—and What It Doesn’t The U.S. House recently passed the OBBB, which is now under review in the Senate. The legislation would:
Extending the TCJA helps maintain some degree of predictability for taxpayers and businesses. That alone reduces uncertainty and allows for better planning and investment. However, the other so-called “relief” measures are classic tax code distortions. Exempting tips, overtime, or Social Security benefits from taxation may sound good politically, but they complicate the code and narrow the base. Every carveout like this means higher tax rates elsewhere or more debt. Instead, the focus should be on across-the-board rate reductions funded by spending restraint. Still Too Much Spending, Still Too Many Gimmicks While the tax reforms in the OBBB are directionally helpful, the bill still suffers from two major flaws:
What It Means for Louisiana Louisiana taxpayers may see a short-term benefit. Workers could take home more pay, and families might enjoy marginally lower tax burdens. But federal fiscal irresponsibility won’t stay in Washington. It ripples through the economy. When Congress runs massive deficits, it puts upward pressure on inflation and interest rates—costs that fall disproportionately on low—and middle-income Americans. If spending continues unchecked, future tax hikes or program cuts are inevitable. How Will It Affect My Taxes?
These are tangible benefits. But they come with a cost—unless matched with spending reductions, they contribute to an unsustainable fiscal trajectory. How Will It Affect My Job? In the short term, businesses may benefit from lower tax compliance costs and marginally stronger hiring incentives. But rising federal debt threatens to crowd out private investment over time. Louisiana’s economy, heavily dependent on energy, trade, and small businesses, needs more than tax tweaks. It needs a leaner federal government. A Missed Opportunity to Do Better The U.S. Senate can—and should—fix the worst parts of the OBBB. That means:
These changes would help ensure tax relief isn’t just a temporary sugar high. They would also align with Louisiana’s needs: broad, lasting reforms that empower workers and businesses without fueling inflation or debt. The Louisiana Connection Back in Baton Rouge, lawmakers are navigating their budget debates. Thanks to economic growth and some early tax reforms, new revenue—roughly $155 million—is on the table. However, too much of the state budget is still soaked in pork projects and misplaced priorities. For example, the Senate Finance Committee just slashed funding for the new LA GATOR program to help families choose a school or educational program that fits their child’s needs, yet increased funding for the public schools families are trying to leave. They also added millions in more pork projects. This is precisely why Louisiana needs a Responsible Louisiana Budget, which would cap spending growth at the rate of population growth plus inflation. It’s a simple rule to ensure the budget doesn’t grow faster than what taxpayers can afford. If federal aid begins to shrink or federal work requirements increase state responsibilities, Louisiana will need even more discipline to weather the storm. The Bottom Line The One Big Beautiful Bill is a mixed bag. It offers short-term tax relief, especially by extending the TCJA, but fails to rein in the federal spending binge sufficiently. It’s not the pro-growth reform Americans need. At best, it reduces uncertainty by keeping some of the 2017 tax cuts in place. Louisiana lawmakers and residents should take note. Don’t count on D.C. to get this right. Push the Senate to improve the bill. And demand real spending discipline at the state level to ensure federal relief translates into real prosperity, not more fiscal risk.
0 Comments
 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:
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:
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 AIER's The Daily Economy.
Manufacturing output in America is booming. According to the Federal Reserve’s Industrial Production Index, US factory output stood at 103.9 in April 2025, near its all-time high. The machines are humming. But that productivity masks two uncomfortable truths: manufacturing jobs are vanishing, and the wages in those jobs are not especially high. So why are politicians rushing to revive a labor model in retreat? The answer is simple: nostalgia sells. But sound economic policy requires more than sentiment — it requires a reality check. The Wage Mirage Let’s start with the supposed appeal of manufacturing wages. In April 2025, average weekly earnings in manufacturing stood at $1,402.40. That sounds impressive — until you compare it to the total private sector average of $1,236.86. That’s just a 13 percent premium. Nice, but far from revolutionary. Dig deeper, and the story worsens. The average hourly earnings in manufacturing were $35.06, below the overall private sector’s $36.14. The only reason manufacturing’s weekly pay looks stronger is because factory workers are logging more hours — not earning higher rates. This contradicts the popular talking point that manufacturing offers uniquely “good jobs.” They’re decent, sure — but not disproportionately better than other sectors. And certainly not enough to justify government favoritism. Where the Jobs Went — and Why The truth is that manufacturing jobs have been declining for decades, long before China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001 or NAFTA passed in 1994. In fact, the share of US nonfarm employment in manufacturing peaked in the early 1950s at over 30 percent. As of April 2025, it stands at just 8 percent, according to Federal Reserve data. The absolute number of factory jobs peaked in 1979, years before globalization became a political scapegoat. Blaming trade deals for this structural shift ignores the real culprits: poor policy decisions at every level of government. States in the Rust Belt doubled down on unionized labor models, raised business taxes, and created regulatory minefields that discouraged investment and entrepreneurship. Federal policies layered on compliance burdens, from OSHA to EPA mandates, while failing to reform outdated labor and tax codes. Simultaneously, capital became more productive and affordable. In response to high labor costs and inflexible work rules, firms invested in automation and supply chain restructuring — rational market behavior in the face of poor policy. If there was a “hollowing out,” it wasn’t caused by China. It was caused by Washington, Albany, and Springfield. Industrial Policy: The Wrong Answer Rather than fix what broke labor markets — rigid institutions, perverse tax codes, and regulatory sprawl — today’s political class is dusting off the old playbook of industrial policy. The logic goes something like this: government should “bring back” manufacturing jobs by picking industries to support, offering subsidies, or restricting imports. This thinking underlies the CHIPS Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and growing bipartisan calls for trade protectionism. But industrial policy doesn’t work. It reallocates capital based on political incentives, not economic ones. It props up politically favored firms and industries at the expense of dynamic sectors that don’t have lobbyists in D.C. More fundamentally, it misunderstands what made America rich in the first place: the freedom to specialize, innovate, and trade. We didn’t prosper by controlling the direction of jobs. We prospered by getting government out of the way. Even if these policies “succeed” in creating more factory jobs — which is far from certain — they will come at great cost: higher prices, distorted markets, and reduced competitiveness. In trying to become more like China, we risk becoming less like America. What Real Reform Looks Like If we want a vibrant labor market — one that pays well and creates opportunity — we should focus on free-market reforms, not nostalgia-driven interventions.
Milton Friedman put it best: “The great danger to the consumer is the monopoly — whether private or governmental.” Industrial policy empowers both. Free markets empower people. Conclusion: Face Reality, Don’t Fantasize It Manufacturing output is thriving in the United States. Workers are producing more than ever. But jobs and wages in manufacturing aren’t what they used to be, and trying to force them back through government intervention won’t change that. We shouldn’t fall for the illusion that factory jobs can or should be the backbone of modern labor markets. We should instead focus on creating an economic environment where innovation flourishes, and people can find meaningful, well-paying work — wherever that may be. America doesn’t need more central planning. It needs more freedom. What does it mean to be a conservative in the 21st century—and how do we bridge liberty with virtue?
In this milestone 150th episode of the Let People Prosper Show, I interview John Hood, president of the John William Pope Foundation and a leading voice behind the Freedom Conservatism movement (sign the statement of principles at the link). We talk about his career as a journalist and policy expert, how fiction writing helped him rediscover deeper meaning, and why a renewed framework for conservatism is essential for America's future. From education and immigration to family and fiscal responsibility, this conversation unpacks the foundations for prosperity in a free society. For more insights, visit vanceginn.com. You can also get even greater value by subscribing to my Substack newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com. (0:00) – Introduction to Freedom Conservatism (2:09) – John Hood’s Journey and Journalism Career (5:00) – Writing Books, Fiction, and Purpose (9:58) – Teaching Students and Conservative Thought (13:02) – Understanding the Debate Within Conservatism (18:07) – Why “Freedom Conservatism” Matters Today (25:02) – Core Principles: Liberty, Virtue, and Responsibility (27:07) – The Foundation of the Movement (34:50) – The Case for Fiscal Discipline (39:52) – Immigration as a Strength, Not a Threat (44:38) – Human Nature and the Temptation of Group Identity (50:23) – Conservatism That Builds Opportunity (53:32) – A Vision for America's Future Originally published at American Thinker.
In recent years, Americans have learned a hard truth: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” During COVID-19, we were told to trust the experts, obey mandates, and silence our dissent. Over time, the truth emerged—much of what we were sold was false, and the price we paid in lives, education, and finances from their false narrative scam was extreme. Now, many of those same voices are repeating another falsehood: that cutting Medicaid will cause Americans to die. Recently, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and 19 House conservatives called for “structural reforms” to Medicaid in a letter supporting the GOP’s reconciliation bill. The bill proposes ending the enhanced federal match for Medicaid expansion and equalizing matching rates for work-capable adults. This would contribute to $880 billion in less expected spending than otherwise over the next decade. Predictably, the media and progressive lawmakers responded with panic. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries declared that such reforms would cause “people to die.” But repeating a lie doesn’t make it true. Medicaid is failing. Cutting its excesses and restoring its core purpose isn’t cruelty—it’s compassion. Structural reform is the only path forward if we want to protect the truly vulnerable and improve access to care. Medicaid was created in 1965 as a safety net for the most vulnerable: low-income children, pregnant women, people with disabilities, and the elderly. But that mission has been lost. Starting with the ACA, followed by the emergency declaration for COVID-19 and thereafter, the federal government greatly expanded Medicaid enrollment. They expanded eligibility standards and suspended verification—millions of healthy, working-age adults were added to the program, many of whom no longer qualify. Millions of Americans were thrown out of work by the Biden administration lockdowns and thus lost their employer-supported health insurance. Biden allowed them to enroll in Medicaid. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, at least 63% of these adults have returned to work and regained access to employer-sponsored insurance. Yet they remain on Medicaid, straining the program and crowding out those who truly need help. As a result, access to health care has plummeted. After the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, wait times to see a primary care doctor in mid-sized cities rose from 99 to 122 days. Under the Biden administration, that delay has reached 132 days. Meanwhile, nearly one-third of physicians refuse new Medicaid patients due to low payments and excessive red tape. In Texas, fewer than half do. This leads to death-by-queue—patients with government “coverage” die waiting in line (a queue) for care. According to the British Medical Journal, even a one-month delay in cancer diagnosis raises the risk of death. Medicaid patients are now waiting four months or longer. This is what we call the healthcare seesaw: as more people are given government health insurance, Medicaid or Tricare, access to care declines. COVID-era policies forced millions of non-vulnerable Americans onto the rolls, diverting the system’s limited resources away from those it was designed to serve, those who truly need help. The seesaw can be rebalanced. By reinstating eligibility reviews and narrowing enrollment to the medically vulnerable, we can improve care for those who need it most. Fewer enrollees mean shorter wait times, more participating providers, and better outcomes. This reform doesn’t hurt the poor and medically vulnerable—it helps them. Medicaid’s dysfunction is not just about who is covered. It’s also about how the money is spent. Nearly half of U.S. healthcare spending—more than $2 trillion annually—is wasted on what we call BURRDEN: Bureaucracy, Unnecessary Rules and Regulations, interfering Directives, and Enforcement for Non-compliance. This is bureaucratic diversion—where dollars meant for care are redirected into bloated administrative systems. Between 1970 and 2024, while the number of physicians increased 150 percent, the number of healthcare bureaucrats expanded more than 4,400 percent! As Brian Blase of the Paragon Health Institute and economist Paul Winfree noted recently, Medicaid is plagued by improper payments, waste, and misaligned incentives that reward states for expanding rolls rather than delivering outcomes. As bureaucracy grows, care shrinks. This is another healthcare seesaw: more red tape (BURRDEN), less healing. Cutting bureaucratic waste would allow more dollars to reach doctors and patients—where they belong. Let’s be clear: Medicaid is broken. It’s bloated, mismanaged, and failing the very people it was built to protect. The solution is not more funding and empty coverage promises—it’s structural reform. Congress is right to demand eligibility checks, spending caps, and funding flexibility. Approaches like block grants to states and consumer-directed models, including no-limit Health Savings Accounts, can get medical care where and when it is needed by empowering patients, rewarding providers, and reducing waste. In contrast to the dire warnings, Medicaid reform will not kill Americans. It will save lives—by restoring access, improving quality, and directing limited resources to the truly medically vulnerable. We were fooled once, by our own government, no less! There won’t be a second time. |
Vance Ginn, Ph.D.
|
RSS Feed
Proudly powered by Weebly