In this Let People Prosper episode, let's discuss today's release of the Texas Comptroller's Biennial Revenue Estimate report. This report is key because the state's balanced budget amendment means this estimate provides the projected amount of taxpayer money available for the 86th Texas Legislature to appropriate during the upcoming legislative session that starts tomorrow. The revenue estimate indicates that the Legislature can pass a budget that funds legislative priorities while including taxpayers in the budget process by lowering property taxes within the average taxpayer's ability to pay. 

The report notes that the 2020-21 budget will have available an estimated $265.6 billion in all funds (state funds and federal funds) (6.7% increase), $176.9 billion in state funds (7.3% increase), and $119.1 billion in general revenue-related funds (8.1% increase). Included in these amounts is an available fund balance of $4.2 billion remaining from the 2018-19 budget. 

The 86th Legislature has a grand opportunity to pass what could be the third straight Conservative Texas Budget (CTB) while prioritizing taxpayers in the budget process to lower property tax bills and improve education.

​Specifically, the Conservative Texas Budget Coalition, which includes the Texas Public Policy Foundation and 15 other member organizations, has set conservative spending limits on the 2020-21 budget of $234.1 billion in all funds and $156.5 billion in state funds based on an 8 percent increase in population growth plus inflation over the previous two fiscal years above current appropriations.

There are also 2018-19 supplemental bill limits of $3.6 billion in state funds and about $4.4 billion in all funds to cover unfunded expenses in the 2018-19 budget. But these amounts could be quickly reached as there's a $1.8 billion amount likely needed to fund a delayed payment to transportation and $2 billion in unfunded Medicaid expenses. Legislators will need to appropriate these dollars wisely so the 2018-19 budget can be the second straight CTB. 

In this #LetPeopleProsper episode 62, I wish you all a Happy New Year! Thank you for watching this vlog, subscribing, and sharing it with your family and friends.

Each year I choose a word that keeps me on pace to reach my goals. My word this year is "flourish." I started doing this last year with the word "prosper," which last year was very prosperous for my family, and know that this year will be even better than the last. Try it! 

2019 will be a busy year as the Texas Legislature will be in session starting January 8. I look forward to discussing the big issues, like property taxes and spending restraint, and providing updates here with guests along the way. We will also discuss interesting things in Congress with the Democrats taking over the House, President Trump will likely act on trade and regulatory issues,  the Federal Reserve will be on the hot seat, and so much more.

May we learn more about our God-given world together. Please send me questions and show ideas along the way. You can always find the show notes on the blog page at vanceginn.com.

​Blessings to you and yours! #LetPeopleProsper

​Despite the economic success of the Texas Model of fiscally conservative governance, a skyrocketing local property tax burden remains one of the state’s most pressing policy challenges. Property taxes have been growing faster than Texan’s ability to pay for them, increasing the need to eliminate them.

​You get less of whatever you tax. This key economic insight suggests the best type of taxation does the least economic harm, achieved by limiting government spending to only securing liberty. The evidence is clear that Texas should never have a personal income tax. There is nearly a consensus that is true, but there is a growing consensus that Texas should eliminate property taxes that keep Texans renters forever. 

​ Property taxes are an inefficient type of tax. They are based on primarily subjective valuations by appraisal review boards and determined tax rates by local tax entities with little to no feedback from citizens. Given the rising property tax burden and its inefficient collection mechanism, they should be eliminated in exchange for a more efficient, slower-growing sales tax based on objective market transactions that would help appropriately remove taxes on capital (i.e. property)—the driver of the wealth of states.

Property taxes are more regressive than a sales tax. Opponents of a sales tax say it is too regressive, whereby people with lower incomes people pay a larger share of their income to taxes than those with higher incomes. The Texas Comptroller’s recent report confirms that both sales taxes and property taxes are regressive, according to the “suits index” (see following two tables), but suggests property taxes are less regressive. However, this analysis (and others like it) do not account for the fact that sales taxes are paid once at purchase yet property taxes are paid annually, hurting low- and fixed-income Texans the most because the costs compound over time. A property tax also keeps people from getting their first home and kicks many people out of their home and business. Appropriately accounting for these cumulative costs indicates a property tax is more regressive. 

​ Texas should ultimately have only a single-legged barstool in the form of a broad-based sales tax. Some talk about the need for a three-legged stool of taxation. These legs include a sales tax, property tax, and a personal income tax. Because Texas appropriately doesn’t have the latter, the argument is that there is a need for the other two. But that’s incorrect. Texas needs the most efficient tax system possible to fund limited government. That’s done by expanding the sales tax base as wide as possible to not pick winners and losers to keep the rate as low as possible.
 
There are paths to swapping out city and county property taxes with a higher local sales tax rate if the state doesn’t broaden the base. This is also a good option as it provides a direct funding source for local governments’ maintenance and operations if, and only if, they eliminate the property tax with a revenue neutral swap. Ideally, the sales tax rate would not be allowed to ratchet up further after the swap and the property tax could never come back.
 
The school district maintenance and operations property tax, which comprises about 45 percent of the total property tax burden in Texas, could also be swapped out with a sales tax. A broader sales tax base could allow the rate to fall. Here is an overview of possible rates and sales tax bases to eliminate the school district M&O property tax in Texas with 2017 data, which the ideal option would be to expand the base and not tax property, as property is capital that supports economic prosperity. 

Texas should limit spending to limit taxes. While sales tax collections can be more volatile than property tax collections from economic changes, sales taxes better reflects taxpayers’ ability to pay than a property tax that they have little control over. Also, property taxes often don’t reflect the economic climate but rather the whims of appraisal districts and local officials that hurt property holders in the process when their incomes are falling. More importantly though, Texas governments must practice spending restraint so that excessive spending doesn’t drive taxes higher than taxpayers’ ability to pay. High taxes are always and everywhere a spending problem.

There's been much discussion about international trade, particularly NAFTA with trade between the U.S. and Mexico, in the news and social media after President Trump's recent tweet-storm against the "bad deal." ​

But let's cut to the chase: people prosper from trade.

​Sure, President Trump is correct that the U.S. is running a trade deficit with Mexico, whereby imports exceed exports, this year that looks to surpass the deficit of $71 billion last year (see charts below); but this net trade balance is useless.

​True prosperity should be measured by the trade value of voluntary exchange of people importing and exporting products.​ This trade value between Americans and Mexicans was $557.6 billion in 2017 and is already $512.3 billion through just October 2018, meaning this year is likely to be even higher. 

For another example, Texas has a trade surplus with Mexico, meaning Mexicans purchase more from Texans than Texans do from Mexicans (see figures below). Consider that in 2017 Texas exports to Mexico  of $97.7 billion were greater than its exports to the next 10 countries combined. And Texas imports from Mexico of $89.8 B were greater than its exports to the next 5 countries combined. But again, Texas' net trade balance with Mexico of an almost $9 B surplus is useless.

True prosperity is the trade value of exports plus imports of $187.5 billion between Texans and Mexicans that year. In other words, through voluntary exchange people satisfy their desires or they wouldn't trade, providing a win-win situation, not a zero-sum game. 

I also recommend reading papers presented at the Dallas Fed's recent conference on 20 years after NAFTA. The book "Economics In One Lesson" has great stuff on the economics of trade. Another good book that I read recently on trade was "Specialization and Trade" by Arnold Kling--I have a short review of it and other books at my Goodreads page.

In general, we need freer trade to let people prosper. Thanks for reading and sharing with others! ​

In this Let People Prosper episode 61, let's discuss the U.S. Senate's passage (and soon will be in the House) of a landmark criminal justice reform bill called the First Step Act, the unanimous vote by the Texas Commission on Public School Finance of recommended changes to the system, and the ninth increase by the Federal Reserve of the federal funds rate target to a range of 2.25-2.5%. 

These are all key issues. But I'm particularly proud of the work that TPPF's Right on Crime team did to make criminal justice reform a priority for years and ultimately by the Trump administration. The First Step Act "provides reentry programming to help reduce recidivism, includes modest sentencing reforms, increases public safety, and gives those incarcerated a second chance once they have paid their debt to society." This is truly a step in the right direction as far too many are locked up for far too long and then return to a life of crime after because of the lack of a job and social normalcy. 

The Texas Commission on Public School Finance provided a number of recommendations on how to improve student outcomes, how to increase teacher pay, how to more efficiently spend taxpayer money, and ultimately how to provide tax reform. Fortunately, the final version included language similar to TPPF's property tax plan that could provide lower property tax payments for Texans across the state. This is what Texans need and deserve to assure that they have every chance possible without unnecessary government barriers keeping them from reaching their hopes and dreams. 

Finally, the Federal Reserve raised their overnight lending rate between banks, known as the federal funds rate, to 2.25-2.5%. This is the 9th increase since December 2015 after the Fed had left this rate in a range of 0-0.25% for seven years. The new rate remains near historic lows, as noted in the chart below. 

While the stock market tanked after this report, the fundamentals of the economy remain relatively strong. One reason for the decline in the stock market today was because the price of credit increased today. This raise reduces the net present value of longer term capital investments and profitability along with the expectation of at least two more raises next year. 

​My take is that the Fed left rates too low for too long when you compare it with an indicator of a more market-driven, "neutral" rate derived by the Taylor rule. As you'll notice in the figure below, the Taylor rule suggests a neutral rate above 4%, which is almost twice as high as the federal funds rate.  By the Fed's distortion of the markets with imposing an ultra-low interest rate policy and multiple rounds of quantitative easing, there are many assets that are bound to be highly inflated and we should expect corrections in these markets as the rate is raised to a more normal level. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as letting the air out of these inflated markets will help steady the markets and ultimately the economy for a firmer foundation for the long run. Interestingly, stocks remain much higher than they were when President Trump took office, which are positive signs of a growing economy as the economic institutions were strengthened from regulatory and tax relief even as burdens were imposed by excessive government spending and trade protectionism. 

More to do to #letpeopleprosper.

In this Let People Prosper episode, let's discuss the recent decision to strike down the Affordable Care Act, AKA "ObamaCare," by a federal district judge in Fort Worth, Texas and note that this is a historic moment along with the economics of it (more here and the YouTube videos below).

Here is the press release by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which led this lawsuit with the stellar work by General Counsel Rob Henneke and 20 states, to note this historic win towards economic freedom, prosperity, and access to affordable quality care for many more people than today.

Ultimately, this will likely be a long process until the U.S. Supreme Court hears the case and possibly overturns ObamaCare, allowing for the opportunity to devolve power to the states and ultimately to the people exchanging in a freer market.

In the meantime, we should expect no changes to insurance coverage, including pre-existing conditions. Long term, we must move to a healthcare system based on markets that allow prices to work with families, charities, and state governments helping the neediest among us and the disabled. 

This is a historic time for America! #LetPeopleProsper

In this Let People Prosper episode, I am interviewed by Liz Wheeler on her show the Tipping Point on One America News.


We discuss the high cost of deficits and debt and the need for government spending relief along with the latest farm bill which continues the expansion of welfare.

In this Let People Prosper episode 58, let's discuss education-related issues in Texas of school finance reform, property tax relief, and the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) of Texas pension solvency.

To sum up, taxpayers have increased funding for public schools for years (see here and here) and now it's time for those elevated current dollars to be spent wisely to the classroom for improved education outcomes. School finance also includes property tax relief which should be accomplished by following the TPPF plan of actually lowering property taxes. And the latest TPPF-Reason Foundation paper highlights the mounting problems with the TRS pension that must be addressed soon before the pocketbooks of teachers and all taxpayers are hit. 

There's much on the line for education in Texas. Serious discussion about spending taxpayer dollars wisely, lowering property taxes, and assuring the TRS pension system is solvent through reform are essential elements of improving education in the Lone Star State. 

#LetPeopleProsper

In this Let People Prosper episode 57, let's discuss the following: 1) latest news on the stock market volatility from uncertainty regarding international trade and the Federal Reserve actions; 2) my latest co-authored piece at the Dallas Morning News on the economic freedom of Buc-ees and what could be done to increase prosperity; and 3) what's next for Texas' rainy day fund. 

In this Let People Prosper episode, let's discuss the large selloff in the stock market as international trade issues along with some signs of slower economic growth and higher interest rates give traders anxiety while incorporating how these influence lower gasoline prices. If you want to learn more, you don't want to miss this full episode. Thanks for watching and sharing with your friends and family! I'm truly blessed to have such amazing support. 

While there have been some potential good signs on the trade front with a possible agreement between President Trump and President Xi, there continues to be much uncertainty about the actual agreement and the fact that it is only good for 90 days and does little to reduce higher imposed cost of trade between the two countries. In general, this needless trade dispute is far from resolved and has contributed to a steep drop in the stock market today, but there are some promising aspects of the agreement.

“Just because the U.S. and China have agreed to call a truce in their trade war doesn’t mean that it’s over: This was a classic exercise in can-kicking,” economist Tyler Cowen explains in Bloomberg Opinion. “Nonetheless, most cans have quite a few kicks in them, and overall this is good news for the global economy. Instead of sweeping everything under the rug, as was the case before Donald Trump took office, America and China have found a new way of addressing conflict by talking openly.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, "at the meeting in Argentina, Mr. Trump and his negotiators agreed to suspend a planned Jan. 1 increase in tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods to 25%, from 10%, as the two sides negotiate over Chinese economic policies."
​
Overall, tariffs are a destructive and counterproductive trade policy, and both the U.S. and China should work toward reducing them to zero. There’s a lot of work left to do on this deal to ensure that Americans can trade with the Chinese without taxes and uncertainty that will only drive up prices and decrease prosperity. 

This action in the international trade arena has had costs not only of higher prices for Americans because of raising taxes through tariffs but also in raising the value of the dollar. Of course, the dollar market has many factors, which also include the Federal Reserve's potential actions of continuing to raise their overnight lending rate target. As U.S. interest rates go up compared with other countries, which essentially all developed countries have historically low interest rates, and people want to park their currency in dollars to reduce global risk, the value of the dollar appreciates compared with a host of major currencies, particularly the European euro.

When the value of the dollar goes up, the price of oil falls as oil is priced globally in dollars. In other words, a higher valued dollar makes it more expensive for people in other countries to purchase oil so demand falls contributing to a lower price of oil. Also contributing to this is higher inventories of oil from near record levels of production in the U.S. from innovative techniques through fracking.

This has contributed to the lowest level of gasoline prices this year, translating "to savings of about $200 million a day for Americans, said Patrick DeHaan, head of petroleum analysis for GasBuddy. DeHaan predicted that gasoline prices will fall further in coming days, but how long that will last is unclear." Given much of my academic research is in the oil and gas markets, there is much to the story of how the oil market works based on supply, global demand, and precautionary demand primarily driven by geopolitical issues.

Supply is increasing, global demand is waning, and precautionary demand is heightened by the previous two factors outweigh this push upward in price. Considering that gasoline is a byproduct of oil, there is, on average, about a 2% increase in the retail price of gasoline for every 10% increase in the price of oil, and a symmetric response for a decline in the oil price over time. 

Ultimately, imposing tariffs on other countries naturally leads them to do the same to us. And families pay the cost. Instead of resorting to flawed mercantilist trade policy, America should lead the way in promoting free trade, which history shows supports freedom and human flourishing. This should also stabilize the stock market from such wild swings driven by policy uncertainty on a the trade and interest rate fronts. Gaining trust in money issues must also come in the form of reining in bloated federal government spending of taxpayer dollars today and in the future from rising debt.

Achieving freer trade, raising interest rates to a more normal level, and reining in government spending would put the U.S. a sounder foundation for economic growth contributing to more job creation and economic opportunity for more people to prosper.

#LetPeopleProsper

In this Let People Prosper episode, let's discuss my recent trip to Washington D.C., where I spoke at the American Legislative Exchange Council's meetings about the importance of institutions and did an interview with Freedomworks, and then discussed the federal budget with Russ Vought, who is the Deputy Director of the White House's Office of Management and Budget. 

​Let's also discuss the latest economic reports about the continued strength of the U.S. economy in terms of GDP growth and personal income, and examine trade issues being discussed at the G-20 Summit. 

Below are a few pictures from my recent trip to D.C. ​

Below is the file for my presentation before the American Legislative Exchange Conference's Fiscal Policy Reform Working Group in Washington, D.C.  This presentation is based on my TPPF research paper titled "Do Institutions Matter for Prosperity in Texas and Beyond."

​I've also provided a more in-depth presentation in this episode of my YouTube series "Let People Prosper" at the channel "Vance Ginn Economics."

There’s much to every person’s journey. Mine has many cycles that made me the man I am today.

The document below tells my story of a key cycle that highlights a peak, trough, and subsequent peak on the anniversary of this life-changing event. I've included pictures throughout that will hopefully give you a good perspective. 

Moral of the story: Even “rockstars” can make a difference! #LetPeopleProsper

In this Let People Prosper episode, let's discuss one of the things that's on most Texans' mind: property taxes.  I recently testified before the Texas Commission on Public School Finance's Revenue Workgroup on the problem and solutions to wretched property taxes in Texas. Here's my written testimony and you can watch my oral testimony at time 59:45 here. 

​
Texas’ property tax system has turned property owners into renters, where government is their landlord and Texans who struggle to pay annual tax bills face confiscation of their properties. Additionally, the growth of government is harming taxpayers and the economy through higher taxes and more regulation.

The goal must be to eliminate all property taxes as they violate property rights, destroy economic growth, and disproportionately hurt the poor while being subjectively determined as they support excessive local government spending. A good place to start down that road is by ending nearly half of the property tax burden in Texas through the elimination of the school maintenance and operations (M&O) property tax, which is supported by the 18 groups in the Conservative Texas Budget Coalition. This is relatively easier than other local tax jurisdiction because the state already determines the school finance formulas and has a way to distribute funds to school districts.

Let's discuss.

First, we must identify the problem.

From 1996 to 2016, total property taxes across the state have increased by 233% while the school portion of the property tax increased by 201%. Personal income has increased by 199%; however, the best metric of the average Texan's ability to pay taxes is measured by the compounded growth of population plus inflation for that period, which was only 123%.  This means that the total tax levy increased by 1.9 times more than pop+inf and the school district tax levy increased by 1.6 times more than the average Texan's ability to pay.

It's no wonder that many people are being forced out of their homes and businesses because of skyrocketing property taxes. This is a travesty what government is doing to people who are trying to leave a legacy for their kids and grandkids. 

This points to the disease of the symptom of high taxes: excessive government spending. Taxes (and deficits) are always and everywhere a spending problem. To gain control of skyrocketing taxes, we must first get control of the driver of the problem in excessive government spending.

This brings us to a solution: By limiting state and local government spending, Texas can use taxpayer dollars collected at the state level to eliminate the school maintenance and operations (M&O) property tax, which is nearly half of the property tax burden, very soon. While other options have been tried in the past, like raising the homestead exemption and swapping the property tax with a reformed franchise tax ("margins tax"), those didn't permanently reduce property taxes--making those attempts a failure in the eyes of most taxpayers. 

Fortunately, there are solutions.

One option is to permanently buy down the school M&O property tax with state surplus dollars until it is eliminated. Here's how:

• Consider similar language as in SB 66 (2018) whereby biennial growth of general revenue-related funds (GRR) above 4% biennially would go toward buying down the school M&O property tax rate each session.
• Have school districts set their tax rate each year to reduce property tax revenue by the amount of the state’s replacement funding until eliminated.
• Allow school districts to only exceed this rate with the approval of more than 50% of voters in an election with at least a 20% turnout, but excess revenue raised by the vote will be recaptured by the state.
• If the historical rate of GRR growth holds, Texas should be able to eliminate the school M&O property tax in 11 years (see Table below). If GRR growth is lower, then it will take longer.
• In addition, to slow the growth rate of the other local tax jurisdictions, increases in city, county, and special purpose district property tax revenue will be limited to 2.5% annually to keep local governments from raising taxes to fill the gap caused by lower school district taxes. The limit can be exceeded with the approval of 50% of voters in an election with at least a 20% turnout.
• This accomplishes the task of slowing state and local government spending while connecting spending less with actual tax relief with the eventual elimination of nearly half of the property tax burden in Texas.

Another option is to replace the school M&O property tax by broadening the sales tax base and limiting state and local government spending. Here's how that could work:

• Consider similar language in HB 285 (2017) that would eliminate the school M&O property tax by broadening the sales tax base so the tax rate works politically and economically.
• Goal should be to sufficiently broaden the base to fund elimination of the school M&O property tax without taxing the transfer of property or raising the tax rate much if at all.
  
• Given that since Adam Smith we have known that the wealth of nations is from the formation and accumulation of capital and that property is nothing more than capital, we should not tax property. This is particularly true if we don't eliminate all property taxes because we don't want a property tax levied by cities, counties, and special purpose districts and a transfer tax imposed by school districts to ratchet around over time.
• Broadening the base could sufficiently be done be eliminating many of the goods and services excluded from the sales tax base as noted here by the Texas Comptroller.
• This should also include a state spending limit as noted in SB 66 that says any GRR above 4% growth biennially would go to buying down the franchise tax or sales tax along with an automatic rollback election for other local tax jurisdictions of 2.5% annually. 
• This accomplishes the task of slowing state and local government spending while connecting spending less with actual tax relief with the eventual elimination of nearly half of the property tax burden in Texas.

The following Table shows different sales tax bases and rates starting with taxing everything in the private sector then subtracting multiple industries measured by the Bureau of Economic Analysis as to keep from resulting in a value added tax system. In other words, we could keep the same sales tax rate of 8.25% (state portion is 6.25% and local portion is a max of 2%) with a GDP base of around $750 billion, which is about half of the private sector economy and about 67% higher than the base today. 

Clearly there is no silver bullet. This will be a difficult hill to climb whichever option is chosen.

​Recently, two economists from Rice University estimated that if the buy down option or the swap option over time was chosen, the Texas economy could expand by about $12.5 billion above expected growth and private sector job creation could increase by 183,000 net jobs above expected growth soon after reform. 

The Texas Model is strong, but there's more that must be done. These options would provide a clear path to more prosperity and less of a burden of holding property until you can finally own it when property taxes are eliminated entirely. 

In this Let People Prosper episode, let's discuss how the recent election gives us insight on how we need more civil discourse to find ways to strengthen institutions so people can flourish. 

My recent paper on how institutions matter provides a good overview of what I discuss in this episode along with economic data to support the theory. Here is a graphic that explains rather well the ecology of human development. 

The data provide overwhelming evidence that the Texas Model of inclusive institutions with a relatively low tax-and-spend burden, no individual income tax, and sensible regulation provides an institutional framework supporting more job growth, higher wages, lower income inequality, and less poverty than in comparable states and the U.S., in most cases. Texas is doing something right. Other states and D.C. would be wise to consider adopting Texas’ inclusive economic and political institutions that champion individual liberty, free enterprise, and personal responsibility.

This is a path to providing an economic environment that allows entrepreneurs the greatest opportunity to thrive and for prosperity to be generated for the greatest number of people. Despite this success, improvements are needed to keep the Texas Model competitive and create even more opportunities for all to flourish. These improvements to Texas’ institutional framework include:

• limiting the growth in government spending,
• eliminating the state’s onerous business franchise tax,
• reducing barriers to international trade,
• reducing the escalating burden of property taxes, and
• relieving Texans from burdensome occupational licenses.

​Even with these improvements, the data overwhelmingly show it was not a miracle in Texas, but rather abundant prosperity generated by Texans from a proven institutional framework called the Texas Model. ​

By strengthening institutions to let people prosper, we can also engage in more civil discourse so that we have many opportunities to work together. 

Overall, a solid jobs report that indicates how we must build on the stronger institutions of the last two years by really focusing next on reining in government spending so families and civil society can flourish.

#LetPeopleProsper

Check out the article by economist Stuart Greenfield below.

It's interesting how his progressive views, and CPPP—but I repeat myself, has started appropriately considering growth of government spending at no more than population growth and inflation. They just happen to want to use a measure of price inflation for state-local expenditures that grows at a more rapid rate than the more typically used consumer price index, which matches their desire to increase spending and ultimately taxes.
 
Of course, the State-Local Implicit Price Deflator supported by Greenfield in the piece below closely measures prices of goods and services purchased by government with little to no voluntary exchange because they are dominated by government intrusion—both the demand and supply. So, those who want spending to rapidly grow can ratchet spending up to increase demand or regulate the supply to get their desired level of spending, which would most often be MORE!
 
Instead, let’s consider the often recommended measure of population growth plus inflation, which is recommended by the Conservative Texas Budget Coalition for a Conservative Texas Budget.
 
State population increases may require more government provisions. Inflation measured by the Consumer Price Index is closely tied to wage growth (see figure below). The addition of these two measures allow for some level of economies of scale. Thus, the metric of pop+inf gives a relatively good indicator of Texans’ ability to pay for their government instead of how much government can inflate their spending by controlling demand and supply.
 

 
Given it's Halloween, here’s the spooky part: Governments in Texas already spend too much. In fact, the state's budget is up 7.3% more than population growth plus inflation since 2004. This amounts to $15 billion more in taxpayers dollars spent this two-year budget cycle than if the Legislature had increased the budget by no more than pop+inf since 2004. Or, this means that Texas families of four must spend $1,000 more in state taxes, on average, this year alone.

They’ll really go nuts when there is the necessary push for a budget that doesn’t increase at all, or…wait for it…shrinks! Because we all know the government currently spends way too much. Meaning we are taxed way too much!
 
The best measure of government is their spending of our hard-earned tax dollars. Guess that’s too spooky for some.
 
#HappyHalloween #LetPeopleProsper
___________________________________________________________________________
Here is the article by Stuart Greenfield at Quorum Report

Greenfield: "How much more can be cut from the Texas budget"
 
In response to the TPPF-led “conservative budget,” economist Stuart Greenfield argues that “what these proposals don’t recognize is that growth in population varies over space and that using the CPI understates the increase in prices local governments experience. But what’s a methodological error among conservative friends?”

Before beginning my analysis of state spending over this century, I would like to wish both Ursula Parks, director of the LBB and Mike Reissig, Deputy Comptroller the best as they head off into the joys of having a defined benefit plan pension for the rest of their lives. I would also like to thank them for their willingness to assist my less than sterling efforts at providing readers of the QR analysis on various public policy issues.

In Shakespeare’s Most Famous Soliloquy, Hamlet states, “to be or not to be that is the question.” This soliloquy must have been modified by the recently organized Conservative Resolution Underfunding Many Basic Services (CRUMBs), whose motto is “to spend or not to spend, what a stupid question.” Alternatively, the group might have named itself, Conservative Actions Killing Education (CAKE), as in Marie Antoinette’s “let them eat cake.”

My humor aside, the Conservative Texas Budget Coalition has offered another conservative budget proposal that would reduce the growth in state expenditures and impose restrictions on local government property tax increases. Their proposed “solution” would over time increase the state’s proportion of expenditures for public education and reduce the growth rate in local property taxes. 

Who could ask for anything more?

From FY00-17, state expenditures grew at an average annual rate of 4.9 percent. In FY18, expenditures grew by 3.5 percent. This rate was less than the rate of increase experienced from FY00-17 in the state’s population (1.8 percent) and the increase in the State-Local Implicit Price Deflator (3.0 percent). 

So yes, the state’s expenditures for FY18 were conservative.  Is a conservative budget the way to ensure continued growth in the Texas economy?  That is a point of contention between those advocating for additional state expenditures for public education, health services, et al., and the Conservative Texas Budget Coalition, which advocates for a budget that increases by population and inflation so that taxes can be reduced.

Like Julius Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic Wars, state expenditures can be divided into three parts, Public Assistance Payments (primarily Medicaid), Public Education, and Other Expenditures. Total All Funds (AF) state expenditures over the 18 fiscal years of this century were $1.6 trillion.

Figure 1 shows how these expenditures were divided among the three groups.
Other Expenditures (Transportation, Public Safety, Higher Education, Salaries) comprise the largest percentage of state expenditures this century, the trend in this expenditure category has been in decline.

As shown in Table 1, Other Expenditures accounted for 45.0 percent of All Funds expenditures in FY00. By FY18, this percentage had declined to 36.9 percent.
One should also note that along with a decline in the proportion of All Funds expenditures devoted to other expenditures, the proportion of All Funds expenditures for public education also declined. The proportion of state expenditures devoted to Public Assistance Payments increased from 28.3 percent in FY00 to 40.1 percent in FY18. This increase in proportion was an increase of almost 42 percent. 

Almost half (49.0 percent) of the increase in state expenditures between FY00 and FY18 was accounted for by the increase in Public Assistance. Only 20.2 percent of the increase in All Funds expenditures were for Public Education.

Along with reporting the current/nominal dollars of state expenditures, most analyses take into accountthe growth in both the state’s population growth (1.8 percent/year over the century) and the increase in prices.

Unfortunately, most of these analyses use a less precise measure (Consumer Price Index) of how state-local expenditure prices have changed. Over 40 percent of the CPI is comprised of consumer spending for housing. Not even Allen ISD spends 40 percent of its budget on housing its football team.

Had the reports used the appropriate measure of State-Local Government prices, the Government Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment: State and local (implicit price deflator, they would find that the prices state-local governments pay for goods and services are higher than the CPI. One can view how the CPI and State-Local Implicit Price Deflator (S-L IPD) have varied over time. In 2017 the S-L IPD was 16.1 percent greater than the CPI in 2017. 

Figure 2 shows how the population and the differing price indices affect real expenditures.  Using the appropriate price deflator has a significant effect determining real expenditures.  As shown in Figure 2, between FY00 and FY18 nominal or current dollar AF expenditures increased by 134.5 percent.  When adjusted for the state’s increasing population (1.8 percent per year) and the increase in the CPI (2.1 percent per year) since FY00, the CPI-adjusted AF increase was 17.3 percent.  Using the more precise S-L IPD (3.0 percent per year) shows a decrease in real AF state expenditures of 0.4 percent since FY00.  So the state spent 0.4 percent less in FY18 than it spent in FY00.  Talk about being parsimonious!

I would hope that in the future greater concern is shown on using the correct measure for inflation that state and local governments face.  According to Fiscal Size-Up 2018-19, 28.5 percent of state All Funds Appropriations for 2018-19 are for purchasing medical services, i.e., Medicaid.  In the CPI the relative importance of medical care is 8.7 percent, one-third the importance in the state budget.  This difference in importance understates how inflation affects real state-local expenditures over time.

Using the incorrect price index affects two other areas that are being debated during this election season.  These areas include state expenditures for public education and local government property tax increases.  Analyzing state public education expenditures finds different groups using different student counts (ADA, WADA, Enrollment) and different price indices (US CPI or Texas CPI).  Again, using either of these price indices understates the increase in costs faced by local school districts.

Those advocating for reducing the growth rate in local government tax increases would limit this growth to the growth in population and increase in inflation.  To exceed their 2.5-4 percent increase in local property taxes would require voter approval.  What these proposals don’t recognize is that growth in population varies over space and that using the CPI understates the increase in prices local governments experience. But what’s a methodological error among conservative friends?

Future articles will address these two issues and show how using state population growth, and the CPI will have adverse an impact on the areas of the state that have experienced most of the state’s population growth. The other article will show that using the CPI instead of the S-L IPD understates the “true” decline in the state’s financing of public education.  Bet y’all can’t wait for these page-turners.

Dr. Stuart Greenfield holds a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Texas. He worked for three Comptrollers of Public Accounts, and since retiring from the state in 2000, Greenfield teaches economics at ACC and UMUC.​

In this Let People Prosper episode, let's discuss Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman's recent concern about the $779 billion budget deficit in FY 2018 under President Trump. Unfortunately, he wasn't worried about the 4 years of more than $1 trillion in deficits under President Obama and he in fact wanted even higher deficit spending. This episode provides a lesson in economics on the aggregate demand-aggregate supply model of how these policies should work in theory but how this mainstream view misses a lot that actually results in my preferred mainstream view of how the economy actually works and the burden higher government spending and resulting deficits put on economic activity and our prosperity.

Last Friday the Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that there was an increase of 3.5% in real GDP growth in the third quarter of 2018, indicated that 2018 may be above 3% growth for the first time in more than a decade. This issue along with the rising deficit gave rise to Krugman's tweet below.

Here's what Krugman tweeted: "Reaction to the GDP numbers: quarterly growth rates don't mean much. For one thing they fluctuate a lot -- e.g. rapid growth in 2014, signifying little. For another, you can always juice the numbers for a few quarters by running big deficits. What about the long term"?

Here was my tweeted response to his tweet that received a lot of attention: "Who is this @paulkrugman who wasn’t worried about budget deficits during #Obama’s 4 years of more than $1 TR deficit but is worried about #Trump’s $779 B? Recall #Krugman was in favor of LARGER deficit spending to “stimulate” the economy under #Obama. Principles matter." 

I recommend going to my tweeted response and viewing the comments and discussion. It was a rather lively discussion with some good info in there along the way, but much of it was just noise. 

This recent WSJ opinion piece by Nobel prize-winning economist Edmund Phelps explains the fantasy of fiscal stimulus quite well along with the nice figure below that shows stimulus doesn't correlate with faster economic growth. 

What we really need for more prosperity is a government that simply sets the rules of the game such that the institutional framework allows for civil society to flourish along with the resulting prosperity for people. Government under presidents of each main party have fallen victim to the "stimulus" argument when in fact it should be about providing the most pro-growth economic environment while running balanced budgets. A good model would be to look at Texas. 

#LetPeopleProsper

In this Let People Prosper episode, let's discuss how the best path to prosperity is capitalism and that starts with a job. The more ways that we can free up the labor market from government barriers to opportunity, such as the minimum wage and occupational licensing, the more prosperity we can all enjoy. 

My recent op-ed in the Investor's Business Daily titled "Amazon's Minimum Wage Revelation: It's About Competition, Not Workers" notes the opportunity costs associated with a government-mandated minimum wage compared with a private market decision: "​Just as the company's management had the freedom to consider the firm's profitability and outlook in deciding whether to offer the higher wage, other private employers should have the same freedom. Amazon apparently thinks they shouldn't, hence the lobbying for a national mandate. Those lobbying efforts could end up doing even more harm."

My recent paper with Dr. Edward Timmons titled "Occupational Licensing: Keeping People Poor" notes the huge cost that many licenses have on people whether they be workers, consumers, or employers. We highlighted this in a recent op-ed: "Between 1993 and 2012, Texas added licensing requirements for 22 low-income occupations. Data from the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation indicate a 460 percent increase in the number of licenses issued by the department, far surpassing the state’s population growth of 37.5 percent in that period. By making it harder for aspiring workers in Texas to enter the job market, licenses artificially inflate wages — and this means higher prices for the services provided. National estimates suggest that licensing inflates wages of professionals by about 15 percent. And this means consumers pay higher prices. In addition, individuals looking to enter a new field may be prevented from achieving their dreams."

For the sake of human flourishing, we should be doing all we can to reduce government barriers to prosperity that are socialist programs like the minimum wage (price of labor control) and occupational licensing (quantity of labor control). 

​#LetPeopleProsper

Commentary at McAllen Monitor.

​Texas has job openings; Texas has workers willing and eager to fill them. Where’s the disconnect that has resulted in labor shortages in a number of fields? It could be occupational licensing.

In many ways, the Texas model of limited government is a blueprint for D.C. and other states. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas’ latest reading of Texas’ economy is very positive. Personal income growth in the second quarter of 2018 was 6 percent — the highest in the nation. And the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics recently noted that Texas’ annualized private sector job creation rate of 3.9 percent is about double the national average of 2 percent.

Yet there are labor shortages in several fields. There are not enough qualified workers to fill the jobs available. If this problem persists, the ability of Texas to sustain its economic momentum will be restrained.

One qualification, which often presents an unnecessary, artificial barrier to employment and prosperity, is occupational licensing.

These laws say that willing workers must get a permission slip from state bureaucrats in Austin. To obtain the permission slip, aspiring workers need to pass exams, pay fees, complete minimum levels of education and training, or meet other entry requirements.

In 2015, more than 24 percent of workers in Texas had a license. That makes sense for family doctors and surgeons. But hairdressers, auctioneers and (in some states) interior designers? Not so much.

We highlight the problems presented by overly burdensome occupational licensing in Texas in a new report published by the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

According to the Institute for Justice’s ranking of occupational licensing for states, Texas is right around the middle of the pack — ranked 21st in the burden presented by licenses for low-income occupations. And unfortunately, Texas has mostly been moving in the wrong direction.
Between 1993 and 2012, Texas added licensing requirements for 22 low-income occupations. Data from the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation indicate a 460 percent increase in the number of licenses issued by the department, far surpassing the state’s population growth of 37.5 percent in that period.

By making it harder for aspiring workers in Texas to enter the job market, licenses artificially inflate wages — and this means higher prices for the services provided. National estimates suggest that licensing inflates wages of professionals by about 15 percent. And this means consumers pay higher prices.

In addition, individuals looking to enter a new field may be prevented from achieving their dreams.

Proponents of these licenses claim that it protects the public’s health, safety, or welfare. But the risk of harm presented in these professions varies dramatically. Bad haircuts aren’t fatal. Neither is poor auctioneering or interior decorating.

It’s important to note that occupational licensing is often at best used as a signaling device for quality service, but it’s not the only way to regulate a profession. Proponents claim there’s only a binary choice between occupational licensing and no regulation at all, but there are many other ways to protect consumers.

Private certification can be used to signal to consumers who provide quality service; auto mechanics use this method quite effectively. The government can perform random safety inspections, as it does in the food services industry. The market can also regulate and provide information to consumers about bad actors via online ratings services like Yelp.

Licensing also serves to constrain consumer choice in the market for health care.

In Texas, patients have a difficult time seeing nurse practitioners without significant interference from physicians. Consumers should be granted the ability to obtain quality care from highly trained medical professionals like nurse practitioners for basic health care, especially in areas with doctor shortages.

The Texas model has achieved some amazing results over the years. We should not let occupational licensing get in the way of Texans achieving their hopes and dreams.

Edward Timmons, Ph.D., is director of the Knee Center for the Study of Occupational Regulation at St. Francis University; and Vance Ginn, Ph.D., is director of the Center for Economic Prosperity and senior economist at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

​As many across the country argue for an increased federal minimum wage, such as the Fight for $15, Amazon announced on October 2 that they were raising their base pay to $15 per hour. While altering their own business costs is one thing, Amazon also plans to join others in lobbying Congress to mandate a higher minimum wage for Americans.

Amazon’s move to raise its base pay isn’t surprising; the company recently passed the trillion dollar value threshold, second to only Apple. While Amazon may be applauded for raising workers’ pay, its lobbying efforts aren’t as worthy.

Just as the company’s management had the freedom to consider the firm’s profitability and outlook in deciding whether to offer the higher wage, other private employers should have the same freedom. Amazon apparently thinks they shouldn’t, hence the lobbying for a national mandate.

Those lobbying efforts could end up doing even more harm.

Despite the commonly held perception that minimum wage laws reduce income inequality and provide the poor with a better life, the real effects are the opposite.

FEWER JOBS, FEWER HOURS
Minimum wage laws have proven detrimental by reducing job creation and the total hours worked for low-skilled workers, who are primarily paid the minimum wage and have less than a high school diploma or little work experience. And the laws raise prices for everyone — thus widening income inequality.

A labor market without government impediments functions like any other market. Employers and workers negotiate a wage, benefits, hours worked, and other measures of compensation until there’s mutual benefit. If they don’t agree, the worker isn’t hired. This is the same kind of mutually beneficial exchange that occurs when you go to the farmer’s market or department store, and it shouldn’t be any different in the labor market.

When this unhampered negotiation is restricted by government barriers such as an arbitrary minimum wage law, there is a misallocation of resources that hurts employers and workers.

For example, no matter what the minimum wage is, $15 or $150, the market will correct itself through higher prices and fewer jobs. In other words, the poor will stay poor, as they see their hard-earned dollars able to buy less and find fewer job opportunities.

VULNERABLE LOW-SKILL WORKERS
Lower-skilled workers are especially vulnerable to the proven job losses caused by federal minimum wage increases because employers who can’t afford the increases in the cost of production simply close up shop, reduce employee hours, or even switch to automation.

A recent study on the effects of minimum wage raises in California using data from 1990 to 2016 showed that a 10% increase in the minimum wage could contribute to a 3.4% reduction in employment. Key industries hit hardest are restaurants and retail stores that typically operate on razor-thin profit margins and often hire low-skilled workers and those new to the workforce.

And minimum wage laws actually make income inequality worse.

As noted from research by the American Action Forum, a large share of the added wage value from minimum wage hikes goes to workers already paid well.

For example, McDonald’s has been replacing cashiers with kiosks in many of their locations nationwide. The kiosks are designed, built, and maintained by high-skilled, high-wage workers while cashiers are typically low-skilled, low-wage workers.

In other words, jobs are created for computer programmers and robotics experts, while jobs are destroyed for those with fewer skills and less workplace experience. The result is an increase in income inequality.

MINIMUM WAGE MISTAKE
So why would Amazon lobby for a policy that has such broad negative effects on the economy?

Maybe because Amazon is a mammoth corporation that has seen tremendous success in recent years. A higher federal minimum wage would probably not hurt its bottom line much.

But Amazon’s competitors might not be so lucky, particularly if they are small businesses just starting out. A higher federal minimum wage could create artificial barriers of entry that would make it easier for Amazon to stay at the top while making it harder for its competitors to succeed.

When it comes to wages, what works for one employer doesn’t necessarily work for another.

We can applaud Amazon for giving its own workers raises; that doesn’t mean Amazon should be lobbying to demand raises for everyone else’s workers, too.

​By strengthening the employee-employer relationship through economic freedom — not minimum wage laws — to let people freely negotiate, employees and employers can prosper.

• Ginn, Ph.D., is director of the Center for Economic Prosperity and senior economist at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Research associate Alesondra Cruz provided research for this article.

This commentary was published at TribTalk. 

​We’ve set some pretty high goals for Texas’ budget for the upcoming biennium. And to achieve them, Texas need to overhaul its arcane and opaque budget-making process.

On Sept. 25, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Heartland Institute, and 16 other member-groups of the Conservative Texas Budget Coalition held a press conference to introduce its legislative priorities for Texas’ 2019 legislative session.

These groundbreaking priorities would limit government spending below population growth and inflation and provide enormous tax relief for families across the state.

Every odd-numbered year, state lawmakers craft Texas’ two-year budget through the General Appropriations Act, which typically just increases funding to government agencies above their prior biennial levels. If lawmakers suspect that spending increases are unnecessary, the burden of proof is on lawmakers to prove they should spend less.

It’s not an ideal process. And it’s made worse by the fact that lawmakers and their constituents often have no idea whether government agencies are spending their money efficiently. When Texas funds departments, it uses a largely unaccountable process known as strategy-based budgeting.

As the name suggests, lawmakers designate dollars to agencies to accomplish broad strategies such as providing education, delivering health care, or paving roads. While these objectives are certainly important, the process makes it all but impossible for legislators to know whether government agencies are effectively pursuing these goals, let alone accomplishing them.

In fact, many lawmakers have no clue how much spending is dedicated to each agency’s programs, where the money comes from, or whether the money is spent productively.

This lack of transparency is a major reason why spending in Texas has exploded over the last 14 years. State spending is up nearly $15 billion more in the current budget than it would be if it had matched increases in population growth and inflation since 2004. This costs the average Texas family of four more than $1,000 in higher taxes each year.

And even though many lawmakers wish to tame runaway government spending, they lack the necessary information to determine which programs should be reformed, trimmed or eliminated.

One way lawmakers can attain greater fiscal transparency is by replacing Texas’ current strategy-based budget with a program-based budget.

Under a program-based budget, legislators and their constituents can track every taxpayer dollar they send to Texas’ various agencies and which specific programs and initiatives they are funding. This will allow both lawmakers and taxpayers to identify misspent funds and root out inefficiencies.

Another reform to enhance accountability would be to transition Texas’s finances to a zero-based budgeting process. Under this type of budget process, each agency begins with a budget of zero dollars and must make a clear and compelling case to lawmakers why taxpayers should be spending money on its various programs. They must defend its purpose, its goals and how it spends money to achieve these goals.

This increased transparency will allow lawmakers to more effectively scrutinize each agency’s performance and remove programs that fail to serve the public’s needs.

Zero-based budgeting has a long history of successfully trimming wasteful spending.

In 2003, Texas faced a $10 billion budget shortfall and needed to find a way to balance the budget because of a constitutional balanced budget requirement?. In response, then-Gov. Rick Perry sent every government agency a budget of zero dollars and ordered them to find efficiencies to close the state’s deficit.

Not only did these reforms eliminate Texas’ shortfall, they drove agencies to make long-lasting, needed changes to their programs. They cut unnecessary initiatives, streamlined operations and consolidated duplicative programs. Overall, these reforms helped the state balance the budget by reducing spending for the first time since World War II – and not raising taxes.

Zero-based budgeting has also allowed lawmakers to eliminate wasteful spending in Georgia, Chicago, and Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

These examples show that proper fiscal transparency and accountability can help Texas’ elected legislators craft a strong conservative Texas budget. Not only would this rein in the excessive size of government, it would help provide an opportunity to deliver substantial tax relief for all Texans.

Achieving the Coalition’s priorities would put the Lone Star State on a path to increased, long-term prosperity.

In this Let People Prosper episode, I cover my updated presentation that provides information about Texas’ economic and fiscal situation, compares Texas with other large states, and suggests key public policy recommendations to strengthen the Texas model so that it can foster more individual liberty and economic prosperity.

Institutions matter as noted by the recent state business tax climate index by the Tax Foundation, which Texas dropped to 15th best nationwide. Texas should increase economic freedom by eliminating unnecessary government barriers to competition to support prosperity.

Watch my explanation of this state-level labor report and other videos at my YouTube channel: Vance Ginn Economics. 

https://www.texaspolicy.com/blog/detail/texas-economic-labor-market-and-fiscal-situation ​

In this Let People Prosper episode, let's discuss the report released by the U.S. Treasury today that notes the federal budget deficit was $779 billion, an increase of 17%, in fiscal year 2018. Again, the evidence shows that government doesn't have a revenue problem but rather a spending problem. 

The largest increase in expenditures was in interest paid on the debt that increased by 23.6% to $325 billion, which is about half of what our taxpayer dollars are used to fund national defense, about one-third of what we pay for Social Security, and about 8% of total federal expenditures. A problem is that interest on the debt will continue to increase at a rapid pace because the national debt looks to continue to grow and the Federal Reserve is expected to raise their targeted federal funds rate, which is currently 2-2.25%. 

Each dollar spent by the government is funded by either taxes, debt, or inflation. Each of these drain resources from the productive private sector. In other words, each dollar crowds out our ability to satisfy our desires and prosper. So, we must be able to prove without doubt that each dollar is spent more effectively by politicians than by individuals in the private sector.

Sure, there are roles for government, but, in my view, the federal government should have three main functions: national defense, justice system, and very few public goods. The total of national defense is just above $600 billion per year, so assuming the rest may run $400 billion per year, that $1 trillion federal budget would be only 25% of the $4.1 trillion spent today. Given a $1 trillion federal budget, the budget surplus would be $2.3 trillion, allowing for substantially lower taxes at every level--preferably one flat rate on final consumption. 

You'll also notice that tax collections did increase even after the large Trump  tax cuts indicating that the robust growth of a dynamic economy supported more revenue, even if it was less than what it could have been otherwise. Moreover, higher tax revenue negates some of the noise by the Congressional Budget Office of a $1.5 trillion deficit over a decade based on a static economic model, but we don't live in a static world and the data today are another revelation of that fact. 

When we consider these details, the crowd out effect of government spending and interest on the $21.5 trillion debt, which is greater than our country's entire economic output of $20 trillion, is a huge cost to the prosperity of our nation that we must get control over before it's too late. But the cost is even greater than that because the $20 trillion GDP includes government spending, which is about 20% of GDP. If you exclude government spending, which there is good reason because it's a transfer of funds from the private sector, then the national debt would be $21.5 trillion/$16 trillion, or 134%! That's what we are looking at trying to pay back over time and is currently more than $65,000 per American. 

As Reinhart and Rogoff wrote in their book This Time Is Different, there's likely a threshold when the debt-to-GDP ratio gets too high such that it hinders economic growth. I don't think that threshold is very high and that we are far above it, and moving further above it quickly unless things change.

We are seeing the benefits of the tax and regulatory reforms along with the benefits of a long--though relatively weak before recently--expansion, but these benefits will quickly expire if government spending is not restrained, trade barriers continue to be imposed, and the national debt continues to rise. 

The best path to let people prosper is by getting rid of government barriers to opportunity, so we must reduce government spending.