Originally published on Substack. 

​Kevin Warsh has now been sworn in as Federal Reserve Chair, and the timing could not be more important.

Inflation remains a threat. Federal debt keeps rising. The Fed’s balance sheet is still massive. Markets are watching whether Washington will keep using monetary policy to paper over fiscal excess or finally restore discipline.
​
Warsh has said many of the right things for years. In his Hoover Institution interview, he argued that the Fed has drifted from its core mandate of price stability, warned about the legacy of quantitative easing, and criticized the central bank’s growing entanglement with fiscal policy. That is exactly the right diagnosis.

Now comes the real test.

Will the Warsh Fed simply manage the same broken framework a little better? Or will it begin the hard work of shrinking the Fed’s footprint, restoring sound money, and ending the central bank’s role as Washington’s fiscal shock absorber?

Inflation Is A Choice

Warsh has been blunt: inflation is not a mystery. It is not a weather pattern. It is a policy outcome.

That matters because too much of Washington still treats inflation as something that happens to policymakers, rather than something policymakers help create. Supply shocks can raise certain prices. Energy disruptions can matter. Wars can matter.

But persistent inflation comes from too much money chasing too few goods and services, often after Congress spends too much and the Fed accommodates it.

This is why I have argued in The Fed’s Latest Move Shows Why the System Must Change and Rules Over Discretion Provide A Path Forward that the Fed needs rules, not vibes. Discretion has given us mission creep, massive asset purchases, distorted markets, and inflationary finance.

The current Fed framework targets 2 percent inflation, but that is not true price stability. It means the dollar loses purchasing power every year by design. A serious reform agenda should move toward a 0 percent inflation target. The goal should be a stable dollar, not a dollar that steadily melts slower than before.

The Balance Sheet Is The Real Story

The Fed’s balance sheet is where the regime change must begin.
​
According to FRED’s WALCL series, the Fed held about $6.714 trillion in total assets as of May 20, 2026

Nominal GDP was about $31.856 trillion in Q1 2026. That means the Fed balance sheet is roughly 21 percent of GDP. Before the 2008 policy crisis, the Fed’s balance sheet was 6 percent of GDP.

My North Star is clear: cap the Fed balance sheet at 6 percent of GDP (maybe lower?) and shrink it steadily until it gets there.
At today’s GDP, 6 percent would be $1.9 trillion. That means the Fed would need to shrink by roughly $4.8 trillion from today’s level. That is not a small adjustment. But it is necessary.

A central bank with a balance sheet above 20 percent of GDP is not merely a lender of last resort. It is a market-maker, fiscal enabler, and interest-rate manipulator. It pushes capital toward government debt, distorts risk pricing, rewards leverage, punishes savers, and allows Congress to avoid the consequences of overspending.

That is not neutral monetary policy. That is central planning through the bond market.

How To Shrink It

The Warsh Fed should announce a simple path.

First, stop reinvesting maturing assets. Let short-term Treasuries mature and do not roll them over.

Second, stop holding mortgage-backed securities. Housing finance should not be managed by the central bank.

Third, move the portfolio toward short-term Treasury bills during the transition, then continue shrinking as those mature.
Fourth, publish a schedule that gets the balance sheet to 6 percent of GDP (lower?) within a defined window, with emergency deviations allowed only through transparent congressional authorization.

Fifth, pair the balance sheet rule with a 0 percent inflation target.

That would be a real dual rule: stable money and a shrinking central bank footprint.

Yes, interest rates will likely rise as the Fed stops suppressing them. That is not a flaw. That is the market finally being allowed to speak. Artificially low rates feel good at first, but they create malinvestment, debt addiction, asset bubbles, and inflationary pressure. The medicine is uncomfortable because the disease has been allowed to spread for too long.

Congress Must Stop Feeding The Fed

But the Fed cannot fix Washington’s spending addiction.

The CBO’s latest outlook projects a $1.9 trillion deficit in 2026, rising to $3.1 trillion by 2036. The deficit is projected to grow from 5.8 percent of GDP to 6.7 percent, while debt help by the public rises to 120 percent of GDP by 2036. That is the real source of pressure on the Fed.

There is growing support for a 3 percent of GDP annual deficit target. That would be better than today’s reckless path, but let’s be honest: it is not enough. A 3 percent deficit is still a deficit. It still adds debt. It still assumes Washington should permanently spend more than it collects. It still leaves future taxpayers holding the bag.

The real goal should be a 0 percent deficit with spending less and restraint as the focus.

That means Congress should adopt a sustainable budgeting rule that limits federal spending growth to no more than population growth plus inflation, as I explain in my Sustainable Budgeting for a More Prosperous Economy guide. The problem is not that Americans are undertaxed. The problem is that Washington spends too much.

Spending is the disease. Deficits, debt, inflation, and Fed intervention are symptoms.

Back To Lender Of Last Resort

The Fed should not be an unelected economic czar.

It should not manage climate policy. It should not allocate credit. It should not subsidize housing. It should not rescue Congress from the consequences of overspending. It should not manipulate the yield curve to make debt cheaper than markets would otherwise allow.

At most, while the Fed exists, it should be a narrow lender of last resort for solvent institutions during genuine liquidity crises, following clear rules and transparent limits.

And yes, my long-run North Star remains ending the Fed. There is no need for a central bank to manage a free economy. Money should be sound, markets should set interest rates, and Congress should not have a monetary escape hatch for fiscal irresponsibility.

But as long as the Fed exists, it must be constrained.

That is why my Finance Policy Guide calls for ending the Fed’s role as an unelected economic czar, capping the balance sheet at 6 percent of GDP, banning non-Treasury debt monetization, moving to rules-based policy, and requiring a full independent audit.

Warsh has an opening to move in that direction.

Three Takeaways For Policymakers

1. Make price stability mean 0 percent inflation.

The Fed’s 2 percent target still erodes purchasing power. A stable dollar should be the goal, not slower monetary decay.

2. Cap the Fed balance sheet at 6 percent of GDP.

At roughly 21 percent of GDP today, the Fed’s balance sheet is far too large. Let assets mature, stop reinvestment, end MBS holdings, and shrink toward a narrow lender-of-last-resort role.

3. Fix Congress’s spending problem.

A 3 percent deficit target is better than the current path, but the right goal is balance. Spending should grow no faster than population growth plus inflation, and preferably less.

The Bottom Line

Kevin Warsh has said the Fed needs reform. Now he has the chair.

The task is not to manage the old system more politely. The task is to change the regime.

Shrink the balance sheet. Target 0 percent inflation. Stop enabling Congress. Let interest rates reflect real market conditions. Restore the Fed to a narrow lender-of-last-resort role until the country is ready to eliminate it altogether.

Sound money is not optional. It is the foundation of affordability, investment, savings, and liberty.

This debate matters far beyond one meeting, one speech, or one political label.

The American political right is in the middle of an identity crisis. Many conservatives correctly see that progressive economics has failed. But too many are tempted to respond with a conservative version of the same mistake: more tariffs, more subsidies, more mandates, more industrial policy, more executive power, and more government management of private life.

That is not conservatism. That is centralized control with different branding.

Freedom Conservatism offers a better path because it is more closely aligned with the classical liberal tradition that built American prosperity: individual liberty, private property, free enterprise, limited government, strong families, civil society, and the rule of law.
​
I was proud to be one of the original signatories of the Freedom Conservatism Statement of Principles, alongside leaders from across the conservative, libertarian, and classical liberal movement. It was great to hear from U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and many other free market warriors at the conference.

Why This Debate Matters
​
Political labels are useful only if they point us back to principles.

The Freedom Conservatism project began as a conversation among conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals (including me) concerned about rising authoritarianism and debates over the future of the American conservative movement. Its purpose was not to create another faction. It was to restate the foundational ideas that made America exceptional and apply them to today’s problems.

That is exactly what we need now.

Some on the right say we need stronger government to fight the left. I understand the frustration. But that approach makes the same error progressives make: it assumes the problem is who controls power, rather than how much power government has in the first place.

Classical liberalism rejects that premise.

The goal is not to replace progressive central planning with conservative central planning. The goal is to limit central planning itself.

What Freedom Conservatism Gets Right

The Statement of Principles begins with liberty, arguing that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom. It also recognizes that human flourishing depends on loving families, stable communities, meaningful work, and parents free to raise and educate their children according to their values. That matters because freedom is not license. It is ordered liberty supported by responsibility and strong institutions outside the state.

That is why Freedom Conservatism is more consistent than many alternatives.

It understands that free enterprise is not just an efficiency machine. It is the foundation of broad-based prosperity. It allows people to work, build, save, invest, innovate, serve, and improve their lives without waiting for permission from political elites. The statement rightly connects affordability to competitive markets, individual choice, free trade with free people, property rights, freedom of contract, freedom of association, and the rule of law.

That is the agenda families need.

Not more price controls.

Not more tariffs.

Not more corporate welfare.

Not more federal micromanagement.

Not more bureaucrats deciding what kind of economy Americans are allowed to have.

The Cost-of-Living Test

This is where the debate becomes practical.

Americans are being crushed by a man-made affordability crisis. Housing is expensive. Health care is confusing and costly. Energy prices are volatile. Groceries are still painful. Insurance costs are rising. Debt service is eating more of the federal budget and household budgets.

The wrong answer is to let politicians manage prices.

The right answer is to remove the barriers that make supply harder and life more expensive. That means more housing supply, more energy abundance, more health care competition, more school choice, more entrepreneurship, less regulation, lower taxes, and spending restraint.

The Freedom Conservatism “About” page highlights three commitments that fit this moment: reducing the cost of living through competitive markets and greater choice, restoring fiscal sustainability, and expanding opportunity for those harmed by past government restrictions on freedom. That is a serious framework, not a slogan.

Fiscal Sustainability Is Freedom

One of the strongest parts of Freedom Conservatism is its attention to debt and spending.

The statement warns that federal debt is a threat to future prosperity, liberty, and happiness. That is right. A government that spends too much does not merely create an accounting problem. It creates a freedom problem. Debt today means higher taxes, higher inflation risk, higher interest costs, slower growth, and fewer opportunities tomorrow.

This is why I keep saying government spending is the disease.

Taxes, debt, inflation, regulation, and fiscal gimmicks are symptoms. If lawmakers do not control spending, they will keep hunting for new revenue, new mandates, new fees, and new excuses to take more control.

That is true in Washington. It is true in state capitols. It is true locally.

Freedom requires fiscal discipline.

Civil Society, Not State Control

Freedom Conservatism also gets something right that thin libertarianism can sometimes understate: liberty needs strong civil society.

Families, churches, charities, schools, neighborhoods, businesses, and voluntary associations do the work government cannot do well. They form character. They build trust. They help people through difficulty. They create belonging and responsibility.

Freedom Conservatism emphasizes property rights, faith and transcendence, and civil society, including the role of voluntary institutions in sustaining liberty and human flourishing. That is an important clarification because freedom without moral and civic formation does not last.

But here is the key: the state should not replace those institutions.

Government is a poor parent, a poor pastor, a poor entrepreneur, a poor price-setter, and a poor allocator of capital. It is usually best when it protects rights, enforces the rule of law, provides a limited framework for order, and then gets out of the way.

The National Conservative Temptation

This is where Freedom Conservatism differs from National Conservatism and post-liberalism.

National conservatives often diagnose real problems: family breakdown, elite failure, China’s threat, institutional distrust, hollowed-out communities, and corporate cronyism. Those concerns should not be dismissed.

But the policy response too often turns toward government power: tariffs, industrial policy, favoritism, mandates, and federal pressure campaigns. That approach gives politicians and bureaucrats more control over the economy and civil society.
That is the wrong lesson.

If concentrated power helped create many of our problems, then more concentrated power will not solve them. The better answer is decentralization: pushing decisions back toward families, communities, states, markets, and civil society. The Freedom Conservatism statement makes that case clearly by arguing that America is best unified when more public policy choices are transferred to families and communities because too many decisions are now made by centralized authorities.

Why Classical Liberalism Still Works

Classical liberalism is not nostalgia. It is realism.

It recognizes that no politician, agency, or planning board has enough knowledge to direct the economy better than millions of people making decisions with local knowledge, prices, incentives, and accountability.

It recognizes that property rights matter because ownership creates responsibility.

It recognizes that free exchange matters because voluntary cooperation beats coercion.

It recognizes that sound money matters because inflation is a hidden tax.

It recognizes that civil society matters because government cannot manufacture virtue.

And it recognizes that humility matters because elites rarely know as much as they think they know.

That is why Freedom Conservatism is valuable. At its best, it preserves the moral seriousness of conservatism while grounding public policy in the classical liberal principles that produce prosperity.

Three Takeaways for Policymakers

1. Do not fight progressivism with conservative progressivism.

Tariffs, subsidies, mandates, industrial policy, and political management of markets are still government control. Better branding does not make bad economics good.

2. Put freedom back at the center.

Lower the cost of living through competitive markets, energy abundance, school choice, health care competition, housing supply, lower taxes, and fewer regulatory barriers.

3. Control spending first.

Fiscal sustainability is not optional. Excessive government spending threatens liberty, prosperity, families, and future generations.

The Bottom Line

Freedom Conservatism matters because it reminds the right what it should be conserving.

Not state power.

Not political favoritism.

Not managed capitalism.

Not bureaucracy with a flag pin.

We should conserve the American promise: liberty under law, strong families, free enterprise, property rights, personal responsibility, sound money, federalism, and civil society.

Thank you for reading and for sharing my work. Through Ginn Economic Consulting, I’m glad to help policymakers, organizations, and media outlets think through spending restraint, tax reform, health care competition, energy abundance, technology policy, education freedom, and broader pro-growth reforms rooted in liberty. I’m also glad to speak at events, join interviews and podcasts, and meet with policymakers across the country.

This debate matters far beyond one meeting, one speech, or one political label.

The American political right is in the middle of an identity crisis. Many conservatives correctly see that progressive economics has failed. But too many are tempted to respond with a conservative version of the same mistake: more tariffs, more subsidies, more mandates, more industrial policy, more executive power, and more government management of private life.

That is not conservatism. That is centralized control with different branding.

Freedom Conservatism offers a better path because it is more closely aligned with the classical liberal tradition that built American prosperity: individual liberty, private property, free enterprise, limited government, strong families, civil society, and the rule of law.
​
I was proud to be one of the original signatories of the Freedom Conservatism Statement of Principles, alongside leaders from across the conservative, libertarian, and classical liberal movement. It was great to hear from U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and many other free market warriors at the conference.

Why This Debate Matters
​
Political labels are useful only if they point us back to principles.

The Freedom Conservatism project began as a conversation among conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals (including me) concerned about rising authoritarianism and debates over the future of the American conservative movement. Its purpose was not to create another faction. It was to restate the foundational ideas that made America exceptional and apply them to today’s problems.

That is exactly what we need now.

Some on the right say we need stronger government to fight the left. I understand the frustration. But that approach makes the same error progressives make: it assumes the problem is who controls power, rather than how much power government has in the first place.

Classical liberalism rejects that premise.

The goal is not to replace progressive central planning with conservative central planning. The goal is to limit central planning itself.

What Freedom Conservatism Gets Right

The Statement of Principles begins with liberty, arguing that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom. It also recognizes that human flourishing depends on loving families, stable communities, meaningful work, and parents free to raise and educate their children according to their values. That matters because freedom is not license. It is ordered liberty supported by responsibility and strong institutions outside the state.

That is why Freedom Conservatism is more consistent than many alternatives.

It understands that free enterprise is not just an efficiency machine. It is the foundation of broad-based prosperity. It allows people to work, build, save, invest, innovate, serve, and improve their lives without waiting for permission from political elites. The statement rightly connects affordability to competitive markets, individual choice, free trade with free people, property rights, freedom of contract, freedom of association, and the rule of law.

That is the agenda families need.

Not more price controls.

Not more tariffs.

Not more corporate welfare.

Not more federal micromanagement.

Not more bureaucrats deciding what kind of economy Americans are allowed to have.

The Cost-of-Living Test

This is where the debate becomes practical.

Americans are being crushed by a man-made affordability crisis. Housing is expensive. Health care is confusing and costly. Energy prices are volatile. Groceries are still painful. Insurance costs are rising. Debt service is eating more of the federal budget and household budgets.

The wrong answer is to let politicians manage prices.

The right answer is to remove the barriers that make supply harder and life more expensive. That means more housing supply, more energy abundance, more health care competition, more school choice, more entrepreneurship, less regulation, lower taxes, and spending restraint.

The Freedom Conservatism “About” page highlights three commitments that fit this moment: reducing the cost of living through competitive markets and greater choice, restoring fiscal sustainability, and expanding opportunity for those harmed by past government restrictions on freedom. That is a serious framework, not a slogan.

Fiscal Sustainability Is Freedom

One of the strongest parts of Freedom Conservatism is its attention to debt and spending.

The statement warns that federal debt is a threat to future prosperity, liberty, and happiness. That is right. A government that spends too much does not merely create an accounting problem. It creates a freedom problem. Debt today means higher taxes, higher inflation risk, higher interest costs, slower growth, and fewer opportunities tomorrow.

This is why I keep saying government spending is the disease.

Taxes, debt, inflation, regulation, and fiscal gimmicks are symptoms. If lawmakers do not control spending, they will keep hunting for new revenue, new mandates, new fees, and new excuses to take more control.

That is true in Washington. It is true in state capitols. It is true locally.

Freedom requires fiscal discipline.

Civil Society, Not State Control

Freedom Conservatism also gets something right that thin libertarianism can sometimes understate: liberty needs strong civil society.

Families, churches, charities, schools, neighborhoods, businesses, and voluntary associations do the work government cannot do well. They form character. They build trust. They help people through difficulty. They create belonging and responsibility.

Freedom Conservatism emphasizes property rights, faith and transcendence, and civil society, including the role of voluntary institutions in sustaining liberty and human flourishing. That is an important clarification because freedom without moral and civic formation does not last.

But here is the key: the state should not replace those institutions.

Government is a poor parent, a poor pastor, a poor entrepreneur, a poor price-setter, and a poor allocator of capital. It is usually best when it protects rights, enforces the rule of law, provides a limited framework for order, and then gets out of the way.

The National Conservative Temptation

This is where Freedom Conservatism differs from National Conservatism and post-liberalism.

National conservatives often diagnose real problems: family breakdown, elite failure, China’s threat, institutional distrust, hollowed-out communities, and corporate cronyism. Those concerns should not be dismissed.

But the policy response too often turns toward government power: tariffs, industrial policy, favoritism, mandates, and federal pressure campaigns. That approach gives politicians and bureaucrats more control over the economy and civil society.
That is the wrong lesson.

If concentrated power helped create many of our problems, then more concentrated power will not solve them. The better answer is decentralization: pushing decisions back toward families, communities, states, markets, and civil society. The Freedom Conservatism statement makes that case clearly by arguing that America is best unified when more public policy choices are transferred to families and communities because too many decisions are now made by centralized authorities.

Why Classical Liberalism Still Works

Classical liberalism is not nostalgia. It is realism.

It recognizes that no politician, agency, or planning board has enough knowledge to direct the economy better than millions of people making decisions with local knowledge, prices, incentives, and accountability.
It recognizes that property rights matter because ownership creates responsibility.
It recognizes that free exchange matters because voluntary cooperation beats coercion.
It recognizes that sound money matters because inflation is a hidden tax.
It recognizes that civil society matters because government cannot manufacture virtue.

And it recognizes that humility matters because elites rarely know as much as they think they know.

That is why Freedom Conservatism is valuable. At its best, it preserves the moral seriousness of conservatism while grounding public policy in the classical liberal principles that produce prosperity.

Three Takeaways for Policymakers

1. Do not fight progressivism with conservative progressivism.

Tariffs, subsidies, mandates, industrial policy, and political management of markets are still government control. Better branding does not make bad economics good.

2. Put freedom back at the center.

Lower the cost of living through competitive markets, energy abundance, school choice, health care competition, housing supply, lower taxes, and fewer regulatory barriers.

3. Control spending first.

Fiscal sustainability is not optional. Excessive government spending threatens liberty, prosperity, families, and future generations.

The Bottom Line

Freedom Conservatism matters because it reminds the right what it should be conserving.
Not state power.

Not political favoritism.

Not managed capitalism.

Not bureaucracy with a flag pin.

We should conserve the American promise: liberty under law, strong families, free enterprise, property rights, personal responsibility, sound money, federalism, and civil society.

Thank you for reading and for sharing my work. Through Ginn Economic Consulting, I’m glad to help policymakers, organizations, and media outlets think through spending restraint, tax reform, health care competition, energy abundance, technology policy, education freedom, and broader pro-growth reforms rooted in liberty. I’m also glad to speak at events, join interviews and podcasts, and meet with policymakers across the country.

Originally published at Pelican Institute.

​Louisiana families feel fuel prices before politicians finish explaining them. Gasoline is the cost of getting to work, hauling equipment, running boats, moving freight through ports, taking kids to school, and keeping small businesses alive.

As of May 22, AAA’s Louisiana gas price data showed regular gasoline averaging $4.051 per gallon, compared with anational average of $4.552. Louisiana is below the national average, but that is little comfort when families are already squeezed by groceries, insurance, utilities, and higher interest costs. Affordability is judged at the pump, not in talking points.  

When prices rise, politicians from both parties reach for the same easy sound bite: suspend the gas tax. It is happening across the country. 

In Michigan, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer backed afederal gas tax holiday while resisting a state fuel-tax cut, even as Michigan gas hit $4.82 per gallon and the state tax stood at 52.4 cents per gallon. 

In Indiana, Gov. Mike Braun extended afuel-tax suspension as prices approached $4.75. In Texas, Democrats and Republicans have both floated tax relief, including calls to suspend the state’s 20-cent-per-gallon gas tax. 

Fortunately, Louisiana has not joined that gimmick list so far.  

Start with Econ 101. Gasoline prices rise when demand increases, supply falls, or expectations about future supply worsen. Crude oil is traded globally, so conflict involving Iran, the Strait of Hormuz, OPEC, or broader Middle East instability can raise prices quickly in Louisiana. That does not mean local policy is irrelevant. It means policymakers should focus on what actually changes supply, costs, and incentives.

Gasoline is a refined product of crude oil. A 42-gallon barrel of crude oil typically yields about 20 gallons of motor gasoline and 12 gallons of ultra-low sulfur distillate, much of which is diesel. That matters because gasoline and diesel are not side issues in the oil market. They are major outputs families and businesses depend on every day.  

TheEnergy Information Administration’s gasoline price breakdown shows the pieces clearly. In January 2026, regular gasoline prices reflected about 51% crude oil, 20% refining, 11% distribution and marketing, and 18% taxes. 

Louisiana cannot control global crude prices, but lawmakers can influence taxes, regulations, infrastructure, refining, transportation, and the broader cost of doing business.  

This lines up with myacademic research on gasoline price adjustments. Retail gasoline prices are tied to crude oil and wholesale gasoline markets over time. Pump prices often rise quickly when input costs jump and fall about the same speed over time when input costs ease. 

But the long-run story is not a cartoon about greedy gas stations. It is supply, refining, distribution, taxes, inflation, and market adjustment.

Louisiana’s fuel tax is lower than many states, but lower does not mean harmless. The Louisiana Department of Revenue says gasoline, diesel, and most special fuels are taxed at 20 cents per gallon. The federal gasoline tax adds another 18.4 cents per gallon, while state gasoline taxes and fees range widely across the country. 

These are real costs layered onto every gallon purchased by workers, truckers, fishermen, contractors, and families.  

Gas tax holidays sound appealing because they are visible. But visibility is not the same thing as sound policy. 

Yahoo Finance recently asked the question many drivers are asking: would a gas tax holiday actually lower prices? The honest answer is: maybe a little, temporarily, and not enough to solve the problem. 

TheBipartisan Policy Center notes that studies of prior holidays found only 58% to 87% of the tax cut passed through to consumers, with suppliers capturing the rest. For the federal tax, that could mean only 10 to 16 cents of relief per gallon.  

That is why gas tax holidays are political theater. They are like sales tax holidays, temporary payroll tax cuts, homestead exemptions, and other carveouts: popular, temporary, and economically weak. 

Gas tax holidays do not create more fuel. They do not expand refining capacity. They do not improve logistics. They do not reduce inflation. They do not restrain spending. They just reshuffle costs and let politicians claim they “did something.”

The better path is more honest and more durable: reduce government spending, eliminate fuel taxes over time, and fund infrastructure transparently instead of pretending temporary suspensions solve affordability. 

Fuel taxes are often sold as user fees, but they are taxes set by politicians, not market prices. If lawmakers want roads funded well, they should prioritize projects, stop wasteful spending elsewhere, and be transparent with taxpayers.

The deeper problem is excessive government spending and inflation. When the government spends too much, it taxes more, borrows more, regulates more, or fuels inflation. Then global energy shocks hit families already weakened by higher prices across the board.

Louisiana has an energy advantage, and should use it.

More production. More refining capacity. Better ports. More pipelines. Lower taxes. Less spending. No gimmicks.
​
Fuel prices come from global oil markets, refining, distribution, taxes, and inflation. Louisiana cannot control every factor, but it can stop making affordability worse. That is how Louisiana can help families keep more of what they earn and spend less just to get where they need to go.

​In Episode 199 of the Let People Prosper Show, Vance Ginn interviews Patrick McLaughlin of the Hoover Institution about how regulation affects transportation, freight costs, and economic growth.

The discussion explores how regulatory accumulation functions as a hidden tax across the economy, raising prices for consumers while slowing productivity and investment. They also discuss freight transportation, supply chain efficiency, the response to the East Palestine derailment, and why policymakers should focus on measurable, outcome-based regulation rather than symbolic mandates.

This episode highlights why transportation and regulatory policy matter far more to everyday affordability than most people realize.

Listen on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify. Show notes on Substack. 

Originally published at The Daily Economy. 

​When a state starts floating an exit tax, it is telling you something more important than any campaign slogan: the people running the place know their model is not working. 

They may not say it that way. They will call it fairness, responsibility, or making the wealthy “pay what they owe.” But the meaning is the same. 

If families, entrepreneurs, and investors are leaving, the state can either ask why its policies are pushing them out, or it can try to tax them for escaping. An exit tax chooses punishment over reform. 
​
I understand why these proposals resonate with some people. If you are watching wealthy residents relocate while governments still face bills for schools, roads, pensions, and other commitments, it is easy to feel like the people with the most mobility are ducking the tab. 

That frustration is real. It deserves a serious answer. But an exit tax is not a serious answer. It is a confession that lawmakers would rather cling to a failing fiscal model than fix the spending, regulation, and tax policies that made people want to leave in the first place. 

That is why the current trend is so revealing. In California, proposals have centered on taxing billionaire net worth, including wealth that often exists on paper rather than in cash. In New York, the push has extended to a new surcharge on high-value second homes in New York City.

In Washington, lawmakers have already enacted a “millionaires’ tax.” These policies differ in form, but not in spirit. They all send the same message: if government has made your state too expensive, too hostile, or too unpredictable, it may still try to claim part of your future anyway. 

The economics are worse than the politics. Supporters talk as if wealth is a pile of idle cash sitting in a vault, just waiting to be skimmed. It is not. Wealth is usually tied up in businesses, shares, property, and future earnings. 

Taxing net worth or unrealized gains means taxing value that often has not been sold, realized, or converted into cash. That can force asset sales, dilute business ownership, weaken investment, and change behavior long before the tax collector ever gets a check.

 A Hoover Institution analysis of California’s proposal found that once likely migration responses are considered, the measure could leave the state with a negative net present value of about $25 billion. That is the real lesson: politicians score the tax statically, but the economy does not sit still. 

And that is before you get to the broader evidence. The OECD has noted that recurring net wealth taxes have become much less common across advanced economies because they tend to raise less revenue than promised while creating large compliance costs, avoidance incentives, and economic distortions. Countries tried them. Many backed away. 
​
A recent NBER study on Scandinavian wealth taxation found that higher top wealth-tax rates reduced the number of wealthy taxpayers and that many of those taxpayers were business owners whose departure reduced investment, employment, and value-added. 

​That is the part too often ignored in political talking points. When a state drives out a founder, investor, or employer, it is not just losing one tax return. It is losing future jobs, future capital formation, and future opportunity for everybody else too. 

Defenders of exit taxes still fall back on one argument that sounds morally satisfying: these taxpayers benefited from state infrastructure, legal protections, and markets while they lived there, so the state deserves one final cut.

But that argument quietly rewrites the relationship between citizen and government. It turns moving into a taxable offense. It says the state retains a lingering claim on your success because you once lived under its jurisdiction. That is a dangerous principle in a federal system built on mobility and competition.

Even in the international arena, exit taxes are controversial, complex, and tied to specific movements of assets or functions across borders. Importing that logic into state tax policy is not modernization. It is escalation. 

The problem is not just that these taxes are bad economics. It is that they usually do not stay narrow. Politicians sell them as a tool aimed only at billionaires or luxury homeowners — policy aimed at an applause line. But when the revenue falls short, the scope expands. 

One-time wealth taxes become annual property surcharges. “Billionaire” thresholds are expanded to target millionaires and eventually the middle class. “Temporary” taxes become permanent fiscal architecture. New York’s pied-à-terre proposal is a good example of how quickly the logic expands once the principle is accepted. 

Frédéric Bastiat warned us to look not just at what is seen, but at what is unseen. We see the tax revenues. That’s a small, visible victory compared to the investment that never happens, the entrepreneur who builds elsewhere, jobs that never arrive — the unseen costs compound. 

Exit taxes are built on ignoring all of that. 

Claiming an exit tax frames mobility as theft, when it is often a rational response to bad governance. They do not restore prosperity. They steal the opportunity to prosper by doubling down on the very policies that made growth harder in the first place. 

If lawmakers want to deter departures, the answer is not a fiscal trap door. It is better policy: lower taxes, lighter regulation, spending restraint, and a serious effort to make their states places where productive people want to stay.

Real economic renewal is more difficult than yet more taxation, but it is also the only approach that works. Exit taxes will not save failing states. They only confirm why people wanted to leave.

Originally published at the Houston Chronicle. 

Friday is the last day for Texans to appeal their property taxes, and there’s no doubt that plenty of Texans are rightly frustrated that their bills keep rising even after years of proclaimed “relief.” Local property tax collections are now about $90 billion per year, even as state lawmakers cite “an overwhelming $51 billion in relief.”

The problem is not that Texas lacks the tax revenue to cover state needs or the policy tools to address the problem. It is that the state has tried to lower property tax bills without fixing the structure that causes property taxes to grow year after year.

The ongoing debate between Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick reflects this tension. Abbott has spoken openly about eliminating school district maintenance and operations property taxes for homeowners, while Patrick has emphasized expanding homestead exemptions on those property taxes. 

Both approaches appeal to voters. But exemptions, limitations on tax revenue growth and other partial fixes do not reduce the size or scope of government. They redistribute who pays for it while allowing spending to continue. Nothing is free, including government spending.

At its core, this debate is not just about taxes. It is about the proper role of government. Government exists to preserve liberty, protect property rights, enforce contracts and provide limited public services. It is not meant to permanently claim a share of what people own or to grow faster than the average taxpayer’s ability to sustain it. When the government exceeds those limits, taxes rise regardless of how they are labeled.

As a native Texan and an economist who has spent more than a decade studying state and local public finance, including detailed work on property tax elimination, I have reached a consistent conclusion. Eliminating property taxes is morally the correct thing to do and can be done either quickly or gradually. What matters is whether lawmakers commit to spending discipline and permanent tax rate reduction rather than temporary relief.

The most logical place to start is school district maintenance and operations property taxes, which make up the largest share of the property tax burden. Public education is already governed by state funding formulas, mandates and recapture rules. If the state largely controls the system, it should fund it directly rather than forcing homeowners to pay a perpetual tax on homeownership.

The lieutenant governor has claimed that eliminating school property taxes would require a massive sales tax increase. That’s not true. According to my calculations, by spending less and broadening the sales tax base — in ways such as by taxing services and currently exempt items — Texas could replace school district M&O property taxes with a sales tax rate no higher than 9 percent, compared with today’s 8.25 percent combined state and local rate. 

The key variable that is too often overlooked is not the tax base or the tax rate — it is excessive government spending. When spending is limited, base broadening can support necessary revenue without punishing taxpayers. That restraint requires a binding limit on state and local spending growth tied to population growth plus inflation, a principle central to sustainable budgeting. 

When the government grows more slowly than the average taxpayer’s ability to pay, excess taxpayer money collected — known as surpluses — emerges. Over the last two budget cycles, Texas has had more than $50 billion in state budget surpluses because of a fast-growing economy. Applied consistently through a surplus buydown with tax revenue collected above population growth plus inflation, those funds could have dramatically lowered school property tax rates without raising taxes.

Local control would remain intact. School boards would still operate schools. Voters would still approve bond elections for facilities and repay that debt locally until it matures. What changes is the funding of day-to-day operations, not who governs.

Cities, counties and special districts should eliminate their property taxes through the same surplus buydown principle applied locally. Local governments should be allowed to rely more on sales tax revenue — but only if that revenue is dedicated to reducing property tax rates rather than expanding spending. Unlike property taxes, sales taxes follow economic activity more closely, naturally capping spending and generating surpluses during expansions while not overly burdening taxpayers during recessions.

Debt should be treated differently. Voter-approved debt should remain local and be paid by the voters who approved it until it matures. The state should not redistribute or socialize local debt across taxpayers who never consented to it.

Texas once led the nation by pairing low taxes with disciplined spending. In recent years, that leadership has slipped as spending has grown faster and relief has increasingly relied on homestead exemptions rather than structural reform. Other states are moving faster on tax modernization and fiscal restraint. Texas risks falling behind if it continues to avoid hard choices.

The time to lead is now. With clear limits on government growth, zero-growth levy rules without voter supermajority approval, surplus buydowns, a modern tax base focused on final consumption rather than property ownership, and political courage, Texas can restore conservative principles to fiscal policy and once again set the standard for economic freedom.

Originally published on Substack. 

Politicians love to tell taxpayers the same story after elections: government needs more money, taxes have to go up, and families just need to pay more.

But states across the country are proving that story wrong.

The latest income tax map by Americans for Tax Reform shows a major policy shift happening in real time. More states are moving away from progressive income taxes and toward flatter, lower, and eventually zero income taxes. That matters because income taxes do two harmful things: they punish work, saving, investment, entrepreneurship, and success, and they give politicians permanent access to your paycheck.

That is the wrong relationship between citizens and government.

Government should have to justify what it spends. Taxpayers should not have to justify keeping what they earn.

How to Read the Map
​
The ATR map below is useful because it shows more than today’s tax rates. It shows the direction states are moving.

Green states have zero income taxes. Yellow states have flat income taxes. Gray states still have graduated income taxes, where rates rise as people earn more. Striped states have passed legislation to eliminate income taxes over time, while other markings show states that have passed legislation to move to a flat income tax or where state leaders have endorsed income tax phaseouts.
​
That distinction matters.

A state’s current tax rate tells you where it is today. But triggers, phaseouts, and flat-tax reforms tell you where the state is trying to go. And increasingly, the reform direction is clear: lower, flatter, simpler, and eventually zero!

The ATR map notes that states including South Carolina, North Carolina, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Georgia, Ohio, Kansas, Idaho, Utah, and Montana have recently cut rates, moved toward flatter structures, or adopted triggers that keep pressure on future tax relief. And state leaders in multiple states have endorsed income tax elimination, showing that this is no longer a fringe idea. It is becoming a serious governing strategy.

Income Taxes Punish Prosperity

Income taxes are among the most destructive taxes because they fall directly on people’s productive activity.

Work more, and government takes more.

Earn more, and government takes more.

Save more, invest more, build more, and take more risks, and government takes more.

That is bad economics and bad moral reasoning.

A state should want more work, more entrepreneurship, more investment, and more upward mobility. Yet income taxes penalize all of those things. They tell families, workers, and employers that success is a revenue source for politicians.

That is why the long-run goal should be clear: no income tax!

Flat taxes are better than progressive taxes because they are simpler and less punitive at the margin. Lower rates are better than higher rates because they reduce the penalty on work and investment. But the North Star should be zero.

The Momentum Is Real

The momentum is not happening in just one state.

Mississippi passed legislation to reduce its individual income tax to 3 percent by 2030 and then continue toward zero if fiscal conditions are met. Oklahoma reduced its rate and created a path toward further reductions. Indiana cut its flat tax and created future trigger-based reductions. Kentucky has been moving down through a flat-tax trigger model. Georgia has been reducing its flat rate. Ohio moved toward a flatter, lower structure. South Carolina moved toward a lower-rate system with potential future reductions.

This is the tax competition model working.

States are watching each other. Lawmakers are learning from each other. Taxpayers are asking why their own states cannot do the same.

And they should.

But Tax Cuts Alone Are Not Enough

Here is the part too many tax-cut conversations miss: most states are still spending too much.

That is where the ATR Sustainable Budget Project is essential. ATR updated its data through FY 2025 and compares state spending to a simple benchmark: population growth plus inflation. That benchmark reflects the average taxpayer’s ability to pay for government. If spending grows faster than population growth plus inflation, government is growing faster than taxpayers can reasonably afford.

And the results are sobering.

From 2016 to 2025, aggregate state spending, excluding federal transfers, rose 65.8 percent, while population growth plus inflation rose only 32.4 percent.

That is the bigger issue.

The problem is not that taxpayers are undertaxed. The problem is that government overspends.

Only a Few States Show Real Restraint

ATR’s Sustainable Budget Project found that only eight states kept their budgets below population growth plus inflation in at least one key category. Just Colorado, North Dakota, and Texas kept both state funds and all funds spending growth below the benchmark over the decade. Five more states, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, and Oklahoma, kept state funds growth below the benchmark but not all funds.

That means the vast majority of states, including many states moving in the right direction on tax reform, still have a spending problem.

This is why income tax elimination must be paired with spending restraint.

Otherwise, lawmakers will simply cut one tax, keep spending too much, and later raise another tax. That is not tax reform. That is tax shifting.

Economic Freedom Wins

The income tax movement also connects to a bigger story: economic freedom.
​
The Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of North America 2025 report measures the degree to which governments allow people to make their own economic choices.

It finds that from 2014 to 2023, population in the freest U.S. states grew nearly 18 times faster and statewide personal income grew nine times faster than in the least-free states.
​
That is not random.

People chase opportunity. Workers chase better job markets. Families chase affordability. Entrepreneurs chase places where success is rewarded instead of punished.

States with lower taxes, restrained spending, and lighter regulatory burdens tend to create better environments for people to prosper.

The Opposition Knows This

The political class understands what is at stake.

Government unions, left-wing activists, and defenders of big government know that if more states eliminate income taxes successfully, taxpayers everywhere will ask the obvious question:

Why are we paying so much?

That is why these reforms face so much resistance.

The fight is not really about one rate or one bracket. It is about who controls the future: taxpayers or government.

The political class prefers permanent revenue. Taxpayers deserve permanent relief.

The North Star

The best path is straightforward.

First, cap spending growth to less than population growth plus inflation. Second, use excess revenue (surpluses) to buy down income tax rates. Third, broaden the tax base by eliminating carveouts instead of raising rates. Fourth, use triggers that continue reducing income taxes until they are gone. Fifth, protect taxpayers from backdoor tax hikes through property taxes, fees, and hidden regulatory costs.

That is how states can move from progressive taxes to flat taxes, from flat taxes to lower rates, and from lower rates to zero.
Income tax elimination is not reckless when spending is restrained. It is reckless to keep spending too much and demand that taxpayers pay more forever.

Three Takeaways for Policymakers

1. Income taxes punish prosperity.

They penalize work, saving, investment, entrepreneurship, and success. States that want more opportunity should move toward flatter, lower, and ultimately zero income taxes.

2. Spending restraint must come first.

The ATR Sustainable Budget Project shows most states are spending faster than population growth plus inflation. Tax cuts will last only if lawmakers control spending.

3. Economic freedom is the competitive advantage.

The Fraser Institute shows freer states grow faster. Lower taxes, restrained spending, and lighter regulatory burdens attract people, income, jobs, and investment.

The Bottom Line

The race to zero income taxes is one of the most important state policy movements in America.

It says government should not have first claim on your paycheck. It says work should be rewarded, not punished. It says states should compete to attract families, entrepreneurs, and investment. And it says taxpayers are tired of being told government must always grow while their own budgets get tighter.

But tax reform without spending restraint is a mirage.

The states that win will be the ones that cut taxes, restrain spending, and expand economic freedom together.

That is how states let people prosper.

Thank you for reading and for sharing my work. If this added value to your week, please pass it along to a policymaker, staffer, journalist, or friend who should read it. Through Ginn Economic Consulting, I am glad to help policymakers, organizations, and leaders think through tax reform, spending restraint, competitiveness, and broader pro-growth policy that lets people prosper.

Originally published on Substack. 

Americans do not need another speech about affordability. They need policymakers to stop making life more expensive.

Families feel the pressure everywhere: at the gas pump, the grocery store, the doctor’s office, the insurance bill, the rent payment, the mortgage statement, and the credit card balance.

These are not isolated frustrations. They are the result of years of government spending too much, inflating too much, regulating too much, subsidizing too much, and blocking too much of the supply families need.

That is why I call this what it is: a man-made affordability crisis.

Markets did not fail families. Policy failed families!

Families Feel It First

The latest Consumer Price Index report shows prices rose 3.8 percent over the last year in April, with the monthly CPI up 0.6 percent after rising 0.9 percent in March. Energy rose 3.8 percent in April and accounted for more than 40 percent of the monthly increase. Gasoline rose 5.4 percent in April and was up 28.4 percent over the year. Food rose 3.2 percent over the year, shelter rose 3.3 percent, and electricity rose 6.1 percent.

Those numbers are not just data points. They are family budgets breaking under the weight of bad policy.

The national AAA gas price average was $4.515 per gallon on May 18. For families commuting to work, hauling kids to activities, or operating small businesses, that is not a minor annoyance. It is a direct tax on mobility, work, and opportunity.

Inflation Is Policy

Some price spikes come from shocks. The latest energy surge has a clear global component. The Energy Information Administration expects Brent crude oil prices to fall later this year as Middle East production rises, but the May outlook still projects $95 per barrel Brent in 2026 and average U.S. retail gasoline of $3.88 per gallon.

That matters. A geopolitical shock can raise oil prices. A refinery disruption can raise fuel prices. A drought can raise food prices. Those are real.

But persistent inflation is not an act of God. It is the consequence of too much money chasing too few goods and services, driven by loose monetary, fiscal, and regulatory failures.

Supply Still Matters

If policymakers learn only one lesson from the current energy spike, it should be this: supply matters.

Energy prices rise when global supply becomes uncertain. Housing prices rise when zoning, permitting, and land-use rules block construction. Health care prices rise when third-party payment, mandates, and federal distortions separate patients from prices. Food prices rise when energy, labor, transportation, and compliance costs rise.

This is not complicated. It is Econ 101.

If you restrict supply while subsidizing demand, prices go up. If you make production harder while handing out checks, prices go up. If you regulate, delay, mandate, and sue away the ability to build, drill, refine, treat, transport, insure, and compete, prices go up.

Then politicians act surprised when families cannot afford the result.

Government Keeps Adding Costs

Too much of today’s affordability agenda is backwards.

Price controls do not create more supply. They create shortages and distortions.

Gas-tax holidays do not create more gasoline. They are political theater, like sales-tax holidays, temporary payroll-tax cuts, homestead exemptions, and other carveouts that make the tax code more complicated while avoiding the real problem.

Tariffs do not make families richer. They raise prices by taxing imports and reducing competition.

Subsidies do not make goods magically cheaper. They shift costs to taxpayers, hide prices, and often bid up demand in already-constrained markets.

Regulations do not become free just because politicians say they serve a good purpose. Compliance costs flow through to families in higher prices, fewer choices, and lower wages.

That is the unseen cost. Bastiat would recognize it immediately: the store that was never opened, the home that was never built, the doctor who quit, the small business that never hired, and the family that never got ahead.

Debt Is Eating The Future

The federal budget makes this worse.

The Congressional Budget Office projects a $1.9 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2026, rising to $3.1 trillion by 2036. Debt held by the public is projected to reach 120 percent of GDP by 2036, and rising net interest costs drive much of the worsening outlook.

That is not sustainable. It is also not compassionate.

Every dollar government borrows must eventually be paid through taxes, inflation, reduced private investment, or slower growth. Excessive spending today becomes an affordability problem tomorrow. Families may not see “federal deficit” on their grocery receipt, but they feel the consequences through higher prices, higher interest rates, weaker wage growth, and fewer opportunities.

Washington has spent years pretending it can avoid tradeoffs. It cannot. The tradeoffs just show up later, and families usually pay first.

The Wrong Fixes

The wrong response is more government management.

Do not cap prices.

Do not punish profits.

Do not impose windfall taxes.

Do not subsidize demand into constrained supply.

Do not keep narrowing tax bases with carveouts.

Do not claim tariffs are pro-worker when they raise families’ costs.

Do not pretend that more debt is free.

These policies may sound compassionate, patriotic, or populist. Too much government has made life less affordable.

Freedom Fixes Affordability

The better path is not mysterious. It is just politically harder.

Start with spending restraint. Federal, state, and local governments should limit spending growth to no more than population growth plus inflation, and ideally less. If government stops growing faster than taxpayers’ ability to pay, the pressure for higher taxes, more debt, and inflationary finance falls.

Then remove barriers to supply. Let builders build homes. Let energy producers produce. Let doctors and patients contract directly. Let entrepreneurs compete. Let workers keep more of what they earn. Let prices signal scarcity instead of letting politicians pretend scarcity does not exist.

A serious affordability agenda should include:

More energy abundance.

More housing supply.

More health care competition.

Lower and flatter taxes.

Less regulation.

Less spending.

Sound money.

Fewer subsidies and carveouts.

More trust in people.

That is how you lower costs without destroying the market process that creates abundance in the first place.

Three Takeaways for Policymakers

1. Affordability starts with spending restraint.

Government spending is the root disease behind higher taxes, debt, inflation pressure, and fiscal fragility. If lawmakers do not control spending, families will keep paying through higher costs.

2. Supply-side freedom lowers prices.

More energy, housing, health care competition, and entrepreneurship will do more for affordability than price controls, subsidies, tariffs, or temporary tax gimmicks.

3. Stop hiding the cost of government.

Debt, inflation, mandates, regulations, and carveouts let politicians shift costs instead of reducing them. Families need honest prices, lower burdens, and more choices.

The Bottom Line

The affordability crisis is man-made.

That means it can be fixed.

But not by politicians pretending they can manage prices, subsidize scarcity, or borrow without consequences. It will be fixed when the government spends less, regulates less, taxes less, and stops blocking the supply families need.

Affordability will not come from more central planning. It will come from abundance, discipline, and freedom.

Thank you for reading and for sharing my work. If this added value to your week, please pass it along to a policymaker, staffer, journalist, or friend who should read it. Through Ginn Economic Consulting, I’m glad to help policymakers and organizations think through spending restraint, tax reform, energy abundance, health care competition, and pro-growth policies that let people prosper.

Originally published at RealClear Markets. 

Congress is finally moving on housing. President Trump is pushing for the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, the Senate passed its version 89-10, and the House recently released an amended version in May that tries to smooth out some of the bill’s rougher edges.

Housing affordability is a major economic problem facing American families. Mortgage rates are above 6 percent (and rising), existing-home prices remain above $400,000, and America is short more than 4 million homes. Young families feel locked out. Renters feel squeezed. Parents wonder whether their kids will ever own a home.

So, yes, Congress should act. But it should act in ways that increase supply, strengthen property rights, and remove barriers. It should not pretend Washington can fix housing by deciding who is allowed to buy what.

That is the problem with the bill’s treatment of institutional investors. The Senate version included a stricter ban on large institutional investors buying single-family homes, along with provisions that raised concerns for build-to-rent projects. The House version softened the approach by preserving exemptions for build-to-rent and renovate-to-rent models. That is an improvement, because build-to-rent can add supply and provide needed rental options.

But the better question is why Congress is targeting lawful buyers at all.

In a free market, a homeowner should be able to sell to the buyer offering the best combination of price, certainty, timing, and terms. That buyer may be a young family. It may be a local landlord. It may be a builder. It may be an investor willing to renovate a neglected property or finance the construction of new rental homes. 

The government should not interfere with private property rights because politicians want to look tough on Wall Street. That is not how free-market capitalism works. It is not how America’s version of capitalism should work either.

The common concern is understandable. Nobody wants families priced out by politically connected firms with cheap capital. Nobody wants neighborhoods hollowed out by absentee owners who neglect properties or abuse tenants. Fraud, collusion, deceptive fees, and poor management should be addressed directly. But broad restrictions on ownership are a top-down response to a supply problem.

And the facts do not support blaming investors for the national crisis. A GAO report found institutional investors owned only 1 percent to 3 percent of single-family homes in six studied metro areas by 2024. Other research finds institutional investors own less than 1 percent of single-family homes nationally. They may matter in certain local markets, but they did not create a nationwide shortage of millions of homes. The government did.

Zoning restrictions, minimum lot sizes, parking mandates, permitting delays, impact fees, environmental reviews, and local veto points have made housing too hard, too slow, and too expensive to build. Then, politicians blame investors for responding to the scarcity that the government created.

When demand rises and supply is restricted, prices go up. If lawmakers want lower prices, they must let supply respond.

That is why the best parts of the ROAD to Housing Act are the supply-side pieces. The House Financial Services Committee says the amended bill cuts barriers to construction, modernizes HUD programs, and allows banks to deploy more capital into communities. Other highlights include manufactured housing, rural housing, financing, and regulatory streamlining.

The investor restrictions move in the opposite direction. Even softened, they rest on the wrong premise: that Washington should decide which buyers are acceptable. Once the government claims that power, it will not stop with “large institutional investors.” The same logic can easily spread to other disfavored buyers, financing models, or rental arrangements.

That should alarm anyone who cares about property rights.

Housing affordability will not be restored by banning buyers. It will be restored by allowing builders to build, owners to sell, renters to choose, and markets to work.

Congress should fix the ROAD to Housing Act by keeping the supply-side reforms and stripping out the anti-market central planning. The goal should not be to punish ownership. The goal should be housing abundance.