Texas' school finance system is overfunded and fundamentally flawed. Taxpayers now spend nearly $95 billion annually on K-12 education, yet student outcomes continue to decline. The maze of state funding formulas is outdated and complex and should be improved, if not abolished. ​

HB 3: A Step Forward, But Texas Can Do Better

I support the concepts of HB 3 because it expands school choice, but Texas must do more to ensure every family has access to educational freedom. HB 3 would cover less than 1.5 percent of Texas’ 6.3 million students, leaving 90 percent trapped in the government school system.

HB 3 has an escalator that would gradually cover students on a waitlist. However, the current legislature can’t appropriate the amount needed to fund the waitlist with the included funding mechanism, as it will be up to each legislature.

HB 3 imposes too many restrictions on accredited institutions and education-related purchases, making it more bureaucratic and costly than necessary.

Meanwhile, HB 2, part of the “Texas Two-Step” package, seeks to invest over $8 billion in government schools. It raises the basic allotment by $220 for every student above the $6,160 amount enacted by HB 3 in 2019, reinforcing the monopoly instead of fostering improvement.

HB 3 is a better approach than SB 2, the school choice bill in the Senate, because it is more universal and does not require students to switch from public to private schools to qualify. However, it must be improved to empower families and not further entrench the broken system.

How to Fund Universal ESAs and Reduce Property Taxes

Texas should replace the outdated school finance model with a universal, parent-directed ESA program.

As an example of an ideal scenario, every Texas student should receive a $12,000 ESA at a cost to taxpayers of $75 billion (or closer to $15,000 if we used the entire $95 billion on government schools today) to use on approved educational expenses. These would include Traditional public school costs, Private school tuition, Charter school costs, Homeschooling materials, Tutoring and special education services, and Career training and college prep.

By shifting from a district-based to a student-based model, Texas can empower families with the freedom to choose the best education for their children.

Texas should transition to universal ESAs for all 6.3 million students, replacing the inefficient government school finance model. This would save taxpayers nearly $20 billion annually and reduce M&O property taxes by two-thirds.

Most funding would come from state-collected revenue, primarily sales taxes. This approach ensures a more efficient use of taxpayer dollars, a direct funding model that prioritizes students, not bureaucracy, and lower property taxes while providing sufficient education funding. Rather than continuing to fund a failing monopoly, Texas should use existing state revenue to empower parents directly and ensure every child has access to a quality education.

The Impact of School Choice on Teachers and the Economy

Expanding school choice is not only about helping students—it also benefits teachers and the economy. Today, teachers are stuck in a monopsony system where government schools control salaries, limiting their ability to negotiate higher wages.

By introducing real competition, teachers would have more bargaining power and higher salaries based on market demand. My estimates show that teachers would see at least a $14,000 increase in pay and some high quality teachers could see an increase as much as $28,000.

School choice fosters competition and innovation, leading to better student outcomes, economic growth, and respect for parental rights.

How to Improve HB 3 and What to Avoid

• Pass HB 3 with improvements to make it universal and remove unnecessary restrictions.
• Kill HB 2 and other measures that funnel more money into the state’s arcane school finance formulas, which already overfund government schools.
• Ensure government schools receive no more than the current law requires. They do not deserve additional funding while continuing to fail students.

Conclusion: Texas Must Lead in Education Reform

The future of Texas education depends on empowering families, not expanding bureaucracy. A universal ESA system is the fiscally responsible, pro-student, and pro-taxpayer solution.

• Provides every Texas student with $12,000 to pursue the best education
• Eliminates waste and reduces inefficient government spending
• Cuts M&O property taxes by two-thirds
• Saves taxpayers $20 billion per year
• Increases teacher pay through competition

Texas can lead the nation in school choice and education reform. The committee should pass HB 3 with necessary improvements as outlined above, reject HB 2, and ensure no more money is funneled into an already bloated government school monopoly. 

Thank you for your time and consideration.
​
Vance Ginn, Ph.D., is president of Ginn Economic Consulting, a contributor at over 20 think tanks, including Americans for Tax Reform and Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, and a board member of Texas Policy Research. Dr. Ginn was previously a lecturer at multiple higher education institutions, chief economist at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and chief economist at the first Trump White House's Office of Management and Budget, June 2019 to May 2020. He earned his doctorate in economics at Texas Tech University. Follow him on X.com at @VanceGinn and get his research at vanceginn.com. ​

Tax reform isn’t just about lowering rates—it’s about creating the right incentives for economic growth and ensuring sustainable government spending. In this episode of the Let People Prosper Show, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, joins me to discuss tax reform at both the federal and state levels, the importance of sustainable budgeting, and why tariffs harm American businesses and consumers. Grover shares his insights on the future of tax cuts, how states like Texas can remain leaders in tax competitiveness, and the importance of reducing government waste. We also explore how smart fiscal policies at the state level can influence federal tax reform, making this a must-listen for anyone who wants a pro-growth tax policy that allows people to prosper.

For more insights, visit vanceginn.com and get even greater value with a subscription to my Substack newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com. 

(0:00) - Introduction to Tax Reform and Advocacy
(2:40) - Why Timing of Tax Cuts Matters for Growth
(5:46) - Challenges in Passing Tax Legislation
(10:04) - How Economic Growth Reduces Deficits
(13:02) - Sustainable Budgeting and Spending Limits
(19:43) - State-Level Tax Reforms & Income Tax Trends
(27:40) - Texas Must Control Local Government Spending
(34:46) - Trade Policies, Tariffs, and Economic Competitiveness​

Originally posted on X.

President Donald Trump’s address to Congress portrayed a vision of “America is back!” This includes faster economic growth centered on tax cuts, deregulation, and less government spending.

While these proposals are critical for ensuring America’s competitiveness, his speech failed to address two major economic threats that will impact every American: the mounting national debt and the costs of tariffs. These would be drags on economic growth, real wages, and prosperity.

While Trump’s instincts to cut government overreach are necessary, true economic prosperity requires confronting the nation’s spending crisis and embracing free trade.

Trump’s call for cutting government spending is necessary, especially considering that the national debt has surpassed $36 trillion and the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 120%. 

Over the past year, the debt has grown by $2 trillion, and annual interest payments are now about $1 trillion. Interest payments now consume a larger share of the federal budget than spending on national defense. This burden will only grow as interest rates rise and more debt is added, crowding out spending on key services like defense, the justice system, etc.

If Washington continues reckless spending, the cost will fall even harder on American families through higher taxes, faster inflation, and reduced access to public services.

Trump’s speech rightly criticized wasteful spending but failed to address the biggest drivers of the nation’s budget crisis: Social Security and Medicare. These two programs account for over half of all federal spending and more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Without reform, Social Security’s trust fund will be depleted by 2034, triggering automatic 21% benefit cuts. For millions of retirees who rely on Social Security to make ends meet, these cuts would significantly reduce their standard of living. Similarly, Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is expected to run out by 2036, which would create a major shortfall in funding for seniors' health insurance.

Reform is urgent. Since their inception, Social Security and Medicare’s problems have been like a Ponzi scheme as debt and workers pay for retirees’ payments. We can no longer wait to address these welfare programs, as the longer we wait, the more drastic the necessary changes will be on retirees and workers.

Trump could have led on entitlement reform by proposing gradual fixes—raising the retirement age, means-testing benefits for wealthier retirees, or creating options for private savings accounts, especially for younger workers. Without these reforms, the alternative is either large tax hikes or draconian benefit cuts, neither of which would be palatable to voters.

In his speech and previous comments, Trump missed an extraordinary opportunity to address these challenges, leaving future generations to bear the burden of a growing fiscal crisis.

On the positive side, Trump’s pledge to make permanent improvements to the 2017 Trump tax cuts is an essential policy for economic growth. Lowering taxes puts more money in the hands of individuals and businesses, spurring investment and job creation.

Before the pandemic, the 2017 tax cuts helped drive record-low unemployment and rising wages. However, tax cuts alone are not enough if government spending remains unchecked. While tax relief helps boost growth, the rising debt and unfunded liabilities will eventually overwhelm these gains if the government doesn’t control its spending.

Running trillion-dollar deficits while cutting taxes is a short-term solution that leads to long-term consequences. If Trump is serious about maintaining tax cuts, he must pair them with meaningful spending reductions to keep debt levels manageable.

The most concerning aspect of Trump’s speech was his renewed push for tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada.
Trump argued that tariffs would protect American jobs and reduce the trade deficit, but history shows that tariffs are taxes on American consumers. Past tariffs drove up prices on electronics, household goods, and other essentials, hitting families and small businesses hardest.

In addition to increasing costs, tariffs provoke retaliation from different countries, threatening American exports. If these tariffs continue, American farmers and manufacturers, already struggling to access foreign markets, will face even steeper barriers to trade and likely bailouts like last time.

The U.S. should reduce corporate taxes, eliminate regulatory barriers, and foster global competitiveness rather than rely on mercantilist protectionism.

Free trade, not government-imposed tariffs based on a flawed mercantilist view, strengthens the economy by giving businesses access to cheaper materials and larger markets. By lowering the cost of doing business, Trump could help create more jobs and keep prices lower for consumers. Tariffs do the opposite: They disrupt supply chains and drive up costs for Americans.

Trump’s economic vision contains many strong elements, mainly his focus on cutting wasteful spending, improving tax cuts, and ensuring deregulation. These policies would allow businesses to expand, wages to rise, and the economy to grow.

However, the failure to address “entitlement” reform and the continued reliance on tariffs undermine the long-term sustainability of his economic plan. If Trump wants to restore America’s economic strength, he must confront the country’s fiscal challenges by addressing Social Security and Medicare reform, reducing the national debt, and shifting away from protectionist trade policies.

Ultimately, the path to long-term prosperity is clear: cut spending, shrink government, and champion free markets. If Trump remains committed to these principles, his policies could fuel another wave of prosperity. But if the U.S. continues with rising debt, higher tariffs, and an ever-expanding government, the risks to economic freedom and growth will be severe.
​
Now is the time for fiscal discipline. By reining in government and unleashing the private sector, we can restore and secure American prosperity for generations. In short, Trump can let people prosper!

​Don’t miss my interview on NTD News!

Originally posted to The Kansas Policy Institute.

The return of tariffs under the Trump administration spells trouble for Kansas, especially its agricultural sector. 

Past federal tariffs and retaliatory tariffs by other countries in 2018 and 2019 led to nearly $1 billion in lost trade annually for Kansas farmers, particularly those exporting soybeans, sorghum, and pork. In response, the federal government issued billions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies, but bailouts are no substitute for free markets. 

This time around, tariffs are in place for many goods imported from China at an additional 10% above what’s already imposed and for Canada and Mexico at a 25% rate. These countries have already announced retaliatory tariffs that contribute to the heated trade war at the time of this writing.

The High Cost of Tariffs
​

• Higher Prices, Job Losses—Tariffs raise consumer costs, reduce investment, and disrupt supply chains.
• Slower Economy – Economists warn that tariffs could push the U.S. into recession within a year.
• Bailouts Are Unsustainable—Although previous federal aid subsidies soared to $20 billion in 2020, they primarily helped large farms while adding to the national debt.

Kansas Leaders Must Act

Instead of waiting for Washington, Kansas policymakers should:

• Expand Export Markets – Diversify trade relationships to reduce reliance on a few countries.
• Boost Value-Added Agriculture – Encourage processing industries that add value to raw commodities and create jobs.
• Reduce business costs – Spend, tax, and regulate less so businesses can better manage the uncertainty and increased costs of tariffs. 
• Defend Free Trade – Work with federal leaders to remove trade barriers that hurt Kansas businesses, pushing Congress to take back its power to tax from the Executive Branch.

Conclusion

Tariffs weaken Kansas’s, and everyone else’s,  economy, leading to higher costs, job losses, and uncertainty. Bailouts don’t fix the problem—free trade does. State leaders must develop pro-growth policies to protect Kansas from another costly trade war.

Originally posted to The Daily Economy.

​Imagine finishing high school and realizing that no matter what path you take — college, a job, or starting a business — your money doesn’t go as far as it should. Your car loan is more expensive, rent keeps rising, and groceries cost more monthly. If you go to college, tuition is higher; if you don’t, more of your paycheck disappears in taxes. This isn’t just bad luck — it’s the result of reckless government spending that fuels inflation, drives up interest rates, and makes it harder for everyone to get ahead.
​
In fiscal year 2023, federal funds to state and local governments totaled $1.1 trillion, nearly one-fifth of all federal spending and 4 percent of US GDP. This money doesn’t come free — it’s taken from taxpayers, borrowed from future generations, or printed by the Federal Reserve, creating inflation.

Even states that claim to be fiscally conservative are hooked on federal money. Texas took in $102 billion for its 2024-2025 budget, nearly one-third of its total budget. That means Texas, like all states that average 36 percent of their budget from federal funds, is highly tied to federal mandates for what it wants to do.

The biggest driver of this dependency is Medicaid, which received $616 billion in federal spending in 2023, over half of all federal funds to states. Many states expanded Medicaid with temporary federal funds, but when Washington inevitably pulls back, states will be forced to raise taxes, cut services, or both, burdening many families. The same pattern applies to federally backed education and transportation spending. 

The more states rely on Washington, the less control they have over their policies.

This isn’t just about wasteful spending — it directly hits American households. More deficit spending contributes to higher interest rates, making mortgages, student loans, and car payments more expensive. The Fed buying Treasury debt to keep interest rates lower by increasing the money supply creates inflation, forcing families to stretch their scarce budgets further. 

Every dollar the federal government spends on state programs is taken from the economy, where businesses and individuals could have put it to far more productive use. The ongoing budget fight in Washington makes one thing clear: states can’t count on federal funds forever. 

Through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), President Trump and Elon Musk have started freezing wasteful grants and unnecessary spending — steps that should have happened long ago. Critics claim this is an overreach, but the real issue is decades of reckless spending leading to a $36 trillion national debt and a Congress unwilling to act.

The Keynesian idea that government spending fuels growth is a myth. Milton Friedman warned that spending is a cost, not a benefit. Every dollar Washington spends is taken from the productive private sector, where real wealth and innovation are created. More government spending crowds out private investment, reduces productivity, and leaves taxpayers with higher costs.

States that are the most dependent on federal aid — Louisiana, Alaska, and New Mexico, where over 50 percent of revenue to cover their budgets comes from Washington — also tend to have some of the weakest economies. The more states rely on federal funds, the less incentive they have to keep taxes low, cut regulations, and encourage private investment.

Trump’s spending freezes have upset politicians who depend on federal funds to prop up bloated budgets, but the real issue is that states allowed themselves to become dependent.

Excluding federal funds, state spending has grown by 61.1 percent from 2014 to 2023, far outpacing the 31 percent in compounded population growth plus inflation. But of course, much of that state spending increase is matched by as much, if not more, in federal funds, creating perverse incentives for states to spend more. But excluding federal funds from state spending over that decade helps to remove much of the increase in federal funds to states for those states that expanded Medicaid. Ultimately, had states kept their spending in check, they could have saved taxpayers $454 billion in 2023.

With Washington facing a growing debt crisis, states must act now to prepare for less federal funding. 

That starts with transparency — understanding exactly how much money comes from Washington, where it goes, and which programs will be at risk when federal dollars dry up. Then, states must rein in spending, eliminate inefficiencies, and take back control over education, healthcare, and transportation so they are not at the mercy of federal strings.

Some states are already moving in the right direction. 

Nearly a dozen — including Oklahoma, Louisiana, Iowa, Texas, and Florida — have launched a DOGE to expose waste and inefficiency. Oklahoma’s Division of Government Efficiency has already uncovered millions in unnecessary spending, providing accountability for spending with taxpayer money.

Long-term spending relief, however, requires Congress and state legislatures to act. While Trump and DOGE are taking steps, only Congress can make these cuts permanent. Without legislative action, future administrations could reverse spending freezes. Lawmakers who claim to be fiscal conservatives must prove it.

Some states have already shown that spending restraint works. Alaska, Colorado, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Wyoming have kept their entire budget growth below inflation and population growth over the last decade, ensuring taxpayers aren’t overburdened. Others, like Louisiana, Massachusetts, and North Carolina, have slowed state spending growth below this key rate but remain too dependent on federal funds that grew more rapidly.

The Sustainable Budget Project by Americans for Tax Reform found that if governments had capped federal and state spending growth at population growth and inflation, taxpayers could have saved $2.5 trillion in 2023. That money could have been invested in businesses, used to create jobs, or saved for the future. Instead, excessive spending has made our lives more difficult.

Rising interest rates and national debt will eventually force Congress to reduce spending, leaving states with two painful choices: massive tax hikes or severe service cuts. There are no more excuses. Congress must spend less. To prepare for this inevitability, states must spend less, reject federal money with strings attached, and embrace free-market principles before it’s too late.

Originally published at Kansas Policy Institute.

​The return of tariffs under the Trump administration spells trouble for Kansas, especially its agricultural sector. 

Past federal tariffs and retaliatory tariffs by other countries in 2018 and 2019 led to nearly $1 billion in lost trade annually for Kansas farmers, particularly those exporting soybeans, sorghum, and pork. In response, the federal government issued billions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies, but bailouts are no substitute for free markets. 

This time around, tariffs are in place for many goods imported from China at an additional 10% above what’s already imposed and for Canada and Mexico at a 25% rate. These countries have already announced retaliatory tariffs that contribute to the heated trade war at the time of this writing.

The High Cost of Tariffs
Higher Prices, Job Losses—Tariffs raise consumer costs, reduce investment, and disrupt supply chains.
Slower Economy – Economists warn that tariffs could push the U.S. into recession within a year.
Bailouts Are Unsustainable—Although previous federal aid subsidies soared to $20 billion in 2020, they primarily helped large farms while adding to the national debt.
Kansas Leaders Must Act
Instead of waiting for Washington, Kansas policymakers should:

Expand Export Markets – Diversify trade relationships to reduce reliance on a few countries.
Boost Value-Added Agriculture – Encourage processing industries that add value to raw commodities and create jobs.
Reduce business costs – Spend, tax, and regulate less so businesses can better manage the uncertainty and increased costs of tariffs. 
Defend Free Trade – Work with federal leaders to remove trade barriers that hurt Kansas businesses, pushing Congress to take back its power to tax from the Executive Branch.
Conclusion
Tariffs weaken Kansas’s, and everyone else’s,  economy, leading to higher costs, job losses, and uncertainty. Bailouts don’t fix the problem—free trade does. State leaders must develop pro-growth policies to protect Kansas from another costly trade war.

Other states are aggressively cutting taxes and putting income taxes on a path to elimination, meaning Texas cannot afford to sit back and assume it will always be the country's economic powerhouse. States like Louisiana, Iowa, and North Carolina have made structural changes to lower tax burdens, making their economies more competitive. If Texas continues growing government instead of cutting taxes, it risks losing its economic edge. The best way to remain a leader is to cut spending, eliminate school district M&O property taxes, and reject tax shifts that only move the burden around rather than reduce it. One tax shift that must be rejected is raising the homestead exemption. Lawmakers have already increased it to $100,000, yet property tax bills continue rising. This highlights that exemptions do not solve the problem—they only shift the tax burden onto renters, businesses, and other property owners. Instead of playing favorites with exemptions, the state should focus on eliminating school district M&O property taxes through compression, which benefits all taxpayers.

Additionally, the loopholes in SB 2 from 2019 must be closed to ensure that tax relief is real and long-lasting. Local governments have exploited these loopholes to continue raising taxes without voter approval. The Legislature should take the following steps to fix these issues:

1. Cover all property tax collections from new and existing properties to prevent local governments from hiding tax increases behind new developments.
2. Eliminate natural disaster exemptions that allow local officials to raise taxes without voter approval under the pretense of an emergency.
3. Use the no-new-revenue rate as the baseline for tax changes, ensuring that any tax increase is transparent and subject to voter approval.
4. Require at least a two-thirds vote by any local governing body to raise property taxes, making it harder for politicians to increase taxes without broad support.

Without these reforms, Texans will continue seeing their property tax bills rise no matter how much relief the state provides. Local governments have become too aggressive in raising taxes and spending without restraint, and unless these issues are addressed, they will continue exploiting technicalities to tax Texans more. Texas must commit to cutting state and local spending, compressing school district M&O property taxes until they are eliminated, and preventing local governments from shifting the tax burden elsewhere. This will provide permanent tax relief, keep Texas competitive, and ensure that families can afford to own their homes without fearing rising property taxes.

Instead of expanding government, lawmakers should cut waste, eliminate fraud, and return money to taxpayers. Texas should not hoard billions in tax dollars while families struggle with rising costs. The state should also reduce severance taxes on oil and gas companies, ensuring that Texas remains the world's energy leader and that money stays in the pockets of those who earned it. Texans deserve real tax relief, not more political games. HB 8 must be strengthened to prevent local governments from undoing tax cuts, enforcing strict spending caps, and dedicating more surplus money to eliminating school property taxes. Now is the time to act and make Texas the best place to live, work, and raise a family.

Vance Ginn, Ph.D., is president of Ginn Economic Consulting and a contributor to more than 20 think tanks, including Americans for Tax Reform and Texans for Fiscal Responsibility. Dr. Ginn was previously a lecturer at multiple higher education institutions, chief economist at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and chief economist at the first Trump White House's Office of Management and Budget. He earned his doctorate in economics at Texas Tech University. Follow him on X.com at @VanceGinn and get more of his research at vanceginn.com. ​

​The U.S. House has passed its reconciliation plan, and this time, the “one, big, beautiful bill” (which the sausage-making will take time) looks to cut taxes and slow federal spending, but let’s wait to see the final result. It’s great to see the new Trump administration and many in Congress are finally discussing the largest national threat: the federal spending crisis. It’s also encouraging to see Texas, Louisiana, Kansas, South Carolina, and other states follow suit with different forms of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). In this episode—and the show notes below—we’ll explore the spending plan details, Texas’s school choice bills, the upcoming U.S. jobs report, tariffs on Canada and Mexico, and more. 

For more insights, visit vanceginn.com and get even greater value with a subscription to my Substack newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com.

(0:00) Introduction to Economic Discussions
(1:56) Federal Spending and State Impacts
(7:13) Jobs Report Predictions and Monetary Policy
(8:30) Texas Department of Government Efficiency
(10:10) Tariffs on Canada and Mexico
(12:44) School Choice Legislation in Texas
(17:24) Renewable Energy and Future Directions

Originally posted at ​Mackinac Center for Public Policy. 

Michigan lawmakers face a critical decision: continue a pattern of overspending or embrace fiscal restraint to secure a stronger, more prosperous future. With a history of unsustainable spending and missed opportunities, legislators should choose a responsible approach to budgeting that protects taxpayers and ensures economic stability.

Michigan’s Democratic majority inherited a $9 billion surplus in 2023 — a golden opportunity to strengthen public finances, pay down debts or return money to taxpayers. Instead, they squandered it. Legislators directed $4.7 billion to business subsidies and another $3 billion to district pork projects. These initiatives might benefit politically connected firms or legislators’ ambitions, but history shows they yield little value for Michigan residents. The state’s major business subsidy deals from 2000 to 2020 delivered only 9% of the promised jobs, even as Michigan’s economic growth lagged behind the rest of the country.

The failure doesn’t stop there. Lawmakers compounded their fiscal mismanagement by diverting $670 million from pension debt payments to fund other priorities. This reckless decision treated pensioners — people who earned secure retirement benefits — as creditors, deepening Michigan’s unfunded liabilities. These obligations already rank among the state’s largest financial challenges, and further neglect undermines long-term stability.

This profligate spending reveals why the state desperately needs a Sustainable Michigan Budget. Lawmakers must adopt a framework that limits annual spending growth to a maximum rate of population growth plus inflation—a proven model for fiscal responsibility embraced by states like Colorado, North Carolina, and others. For the upcoming budget, this means capping spending growth at 3.6%, ensuring expenditures align with the average taxpayer’s ability to pay while creating room for debt reduction and tax relief.

Contrary to common misconceptions, fiscal restraint empowers governments to do more. The state can plan strategically now and for the future. When lawmakers curb spending during revenue booms, they prepare for future downturns, allowing stable budgets even in lean times. Restraint also makes it possible to pay down debt, reducing liabilities like pension obligations that otherwise drain resources from essential services. Finally, fiscal discipline creates room for meaningful tax relief, boosting economic growth by allowing individuals and businesses to invest more in productive activities.

Michigan has an opportunity to learn from states that have embraced sustainable budgeting. In North Carolina, for example, spending growth has been tied to population growth plus inflation for years, fostering fiscal stability while enabling significant tax relief. Michigan can follow this path, using discipline today to build a stronger, more resilient economy tomorrow.

With Republicans now controlling the Michigan House of Representatives, hope exists for a shift toward sustainable fiscal practices. The state’s post-pandemic revenue surge and federal cash infusions have already been spent. However, revenues are projected to grow this year, providing lawmakers with the chance to correct the state’s course and avoid repeating past mistakes.

Will Michigan’s leaders seize this moment or squander it again? By continuing to overspend, they risk burdening taxpayers with unsustainable debts and jeopardizing the state’s economic future. But if they embrace sustainable budgeting, they can ensure that Michigan residents keep more of their hard-earned money and secure long-term prosperity for everyone.
​
Michigan deserves better than the reckless spending and short-term thinking that have defined its recent history. Lawmakers must chart a new course that prioritizes fiscal responsibility, respects taxpayers, and fosters economic freedom. The time for change is now.

Originally posted to DC Journal. 

President Trump’s latest moves include a 10 percent tariff on all imports from China, a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum, and reciprocal tariffs on Canada and Mexico that could reach as high as 25 percent. These measures, justified as a way to “level the playing field,” will instead exacerbate price pressures that the Federal Reserve has struggled to contain.

According to the Tax Foundation, the proposed tariffs will shrink Canada’s and Mexico’s gross domestic product by 0.3 percent and China’s by 0.1 percent. They will also impose a $1 trillion tax hike on Americans, averaging more than $800 per U.S. household over the next decade.

The economic damage from these policies is staggering. The expanded steel and aluminum tariffs will raise taxes on Americans by an additional $53.7 billion — not by growing the economy but by squeezing businesses and consumers through higher costs. This will disproportionately hurt American manufacturers that rely on these materials, making their products more expensive domestically and less competitive globally.

We’ve seen this play out before: The 2018 steel tariffs caused more job losses in steel-consuming industries than the total number of steelworkers in the United States — an undeniable example of how protectionism backfires.

Tariffs don’t hurt just businesses; they also hit working-class Americans the hardest. The new trade war is projected to reduce after-tax incomes by 0.8 percent in 2025, with middle- and lower-income households bearing the brunt of rising consumer costs.

This doesn’t account for foreign retaliation, which is already in motion. China has announced counter-tariffs on $21.2 billion worth of U.S. exports, including liquefied natural gas, coal and large motor vehicles — industries that will see falling demand and potential job losses.

In reality, Trump’s tariffs are one of the most significant tax increases in modern history. If imposed, they will rank as the biggest tax hike since 1993 and the 18th largest since 1940. And for what? The justification that trade deficits hurt the U.S. economy is fundamentally flawed.

A trade deficit is not a sign of economic weakness — it reflects strong capital inflows and consumer purchasing power. Trying to “fix” it with tariffs only distorts markets and raises costs. The 2018-2019 trade war proved this: tariffs on $380 billion of goods led to higher prices, reduced employment, and a 0.2 percent decline in long-term GDP. This result is similar to the estimated drag on growth from an otherwise pro-growth agenda that I estimated during the first Trump White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

Beyond the direct costs, these tariffs ignore the real causes of the decline in manufacturing in the United States.

Protectionists love to blame China for job losses. Still, the decline in Rust Belt manufacturing predates China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001. Although manufacturing output has continued to hit record highs, employment has stagnated due to automation, technological advances and government-imposed costs. High wages, excessive state and local taxes, and overregulation made operating in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania too expensive long before globalization became an easy scapegoat.

The solution isn’t tariffs — it’s lowering business costs in America.

A more pressing issue that Trump’s tariffs ignore is the overvaluation of the U.S. dollar, which makes American exports more expensive abroad and increases reliance on cheap imports. Runaway government spending and deficits are major drivers of the strong dollar, making it harder for manufacturers to compete globally. Yet, instead of tackling the root problem — government spending — Trump is opting for tariffs that further distort trade without addressing the issue.

If policymakers want to strengthen American manufacturing, they should focus on reducing the federal budget deficit to prevent excessive borrowing from propping up the dollar. Cutting government spending would ease inflationary pressures, allow interest rates to stabilize, and remove artificial barriers that weaken U.S. exports.
That’s the right approach — not slapping tariffs on foreign goods that raise prices at home.

Republicans, traditionally the champions of free markets, are dangerously abusing economic nationalism. Protectionism is nothing more than big-government interference in the market, and it runs counter to conservative principles.

Free trade is a cornerstone of economic freedom, driving competition, innovation and lower prices. Conversely, tariffs stifle growth, increase government control and burden businesses with unnecessary costs.

​The way forward is clear: reduce government spending, lower the budget deficit, embrace free trade and let markets work. Tariffs are a failed policy; history has shown they do more harm than good.

​Education should empower parents and students, not protect bureaucratic systems. In this episode of the Let People Prosper Show, Jenny Clark, founder of Love Your School, joins me to discuss education savings accounts (ESAs), universal school choice, and the fight for parental rights.

Jenny shares her journey as a mother and educator, how Arizona became a leader in education reform, and why families deserve flexible learning options that align with their children's needs and values. We also discuss misconceptions about ESAs, the challenges of government overreach, and the grassroots movement pushing for true education freedom.

For more insights, visit vanceginn.com and get even greater value with a subscription to my Substack newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com. 
(0:00) - Introduction to School Choice and Education Empowerment
(2:02) - Jenny Clark’s Personal Journey and Education Mission
(6:49) - The Role of Economics in Education
(10:00) - Why Worldview Matters in School Choice
(12:23) - Love Your School: How It Helps Families
(18:21) - The Growth of ESAs in Arizona and Beyond
(31:39) - How School Choice Benefits Families and Students
(38:12)  - Policy Recommendations for Expanding ESAs

Originally published to X. 

The Texas House sells HB 2 and HB 3 as a package deal for education reform, calling them the "Texas Two-Step." But this so-called two-step is a misstep.

The package prioritizes billions more taxpayer money for a broken public education monopoly while substantially limiting school choice and property tax relief efforts. In fact, there would be twice as much with at least $8 billion for public education than the school choice amount of $1 billion and new property tax relief (not already required by existing law)of $3 billion…combined.

Ultimately, this would make improving education or eliminating school district maintenance and operations (M&O) property taxes much harder, if not impossible. Therefore, HB 2 should die, and HB 3 needs improvements to ensure Texas delivers true education freedom.

But let’s consider these two bills' merits and how they fit in the broader policy picture.

HB 3 could be a big win for school choice. It would create the first education savings account (ESA) program in Texas history and one of the biggest in the country. It provides universal eligibility, meaning every student qualifies.

However, the first year's $1 billion funding would cover ESAs for fewer than 100,000 students, or just 1.5% of the state’s 6.3 million students statewide. In other words, 98.5% of students in Texas wouldn’t initially have access to an ESA. This is a conservative estimate, as the number of students covered could be substantially less due to an unknown number of students with special needs receiving up to $30,000 annually.

Families that apply but don’t receive initial funding would be placed on a tiered waitlist with an ordering based on students with special needs first, low-income families next, and then higher-income families as funding allows.

The bill includes an “escalator” for covering the students on the ESA waitlist over time but does not have an automatic appropriation. Therefore, future legislatures would need to allocate new funding to cover those on the waitlist, which could be a problem in reaching universal school choice soon, if at all, with this package deal.

With HB 2 dumping more than $8 billion into public education, it will be far more challenging, if not impossible, to garner enough support for additional ESA funding later. Instead of building on HB 3, the primarily taxpayer-funded education lobby will argue that Texas needs more taxpayer money for public education, making expansion politically challenging.

HB 2 worsens nearly all of Texas’ long-term education and tax priorities. It could provide across-the-board pay increases, whether some teachers or administrators deserve it or not, and some merit-based pay increases. Also, it could increase the basic allotment, which is the minimum funding for each student, with the actual spending per student nearly three times as high. These would be large ongoing expenditures paid by taxpayers.

Since 2011, Texas has already increased per-student funding by 48%, far outpacing inflation’s 35% rise. Yet student outcomes have declined sharply, with 8th-grade math proficiency dropping 40% over the same period.
The state has spent record amounts on public education, only to see the taxpayer-funded monopoly continue to fail students, frustrate parents, and burden taxpayers. Given this, one could argue that Texans are overfunding public education, as spending is record-high and outcomes are near-record lows. The state can’t keep repeating the same mistakes and expect a different result.

Some lawmakers believe they can buy-off the anti-school choice crowd by increasing public school funding alongside an ESA program. This is a fantasy. The teacher unions and public education lobby will never be satisfied, no matter how much money they receive. They perceive education freedom and choice as a threat to their taxpayer-funded monopoly.

Just look at what happened to Chairman Brad Buckley when he attended a recent Texas PTA event. Despite his efforts to substantially increase school funding with HB 2, he was heckled, yelled at, and berated simply for supporting school choice in HB 3. He stayed to listen to them, but when he understood they were unwilling to talk, he did the right thing and left.
This incident should send a clear message: no amount of funding will ever satisfy the anti-school choice crowd. They will always fight competition and demand more taxpayer money. This is what a monopoly mindset does.

HB 2 also directly undermines two of Texas’ biggest priorities.

First, it makes expanding universal school choice much harder. By tying HB 3 to massive increases in government school funding, school choice will always be fighting for budget scraps. Instead of establishing ESAs as the future of education funding, HB 2 traps Texas into the same broken system: government schools get billions of more taxpayer money while school choice programs have to beg for budget scraps each session.
Second, it severely hampers momentum toward eliminating school district M&O property taxes. These taxes are the largest burden on Texas families and small businesses, and the way to phase them out is through rate compression and spending restraint. But every new dollar spent on government schools makes reducing those property tax rates more difficult.

If Texas continues to spend billions on a bloated education bureaucracy, it will be nearly impossible to justify giving taxpayers relief through compression. That means higher property taxes for Texans and no path to eliminating school district M&O property taxes.

Instead of doubling down on a failing school finance model, Texas should modernize education funding entirely by transitioning to a universal ESA approach. This could save taxpayers $20 billion annually by moving to a $12,000 ESA per child, allowing parents to take control of their children’s education, and cutting school district M&O property taxes by two-thirds.
​
If Texas lawmakers truly want to deliver real education freedom and property tax relief, they must fund our children, not systems, and stop throwing more money at a failing public school monopoly. Texans deserve better than this broken "Texas Two-Step"—it’s time for a better step in the right direction.

​In this episode I discuss the recent momentum in the states to pass much-needed pro-growth reforms. You can watch the full video below or tune in on YouTube, Apple Podcast, or Spotify, and visit my website for more information.