Improve Immigration by Strengthening American Values with Dr. Veronique de Rugy| LPP ep. 1026/25/2024 Join me for Episode 102 of the Let People Prosper Show to hear a deep discussion with the fantastic Dr. Veronique (Vero) de Rugy, the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, who migrated from France to America.
We Explore: -How the entrepreneurial spirit contributes to immigration between countries. - What the differences are between national conservatism and classical liberalism. - Which policies would improve the economic and fiscal picture. Like, subscribe, and share the Let People Prosper Show, and visit vanceginn.substack.com and vanceginn.com for more insights from me, my research, and ways to invite me on your show, give a speech, and more.
0 Comments
Hello everyone,
It’s a pleasure to be with you today. As one who believes strongly in free markets and individual liberty and has served as the chief economist of multiple think tanks and at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, I’ve come from Texas not with barbecue, as you also have delicious barbecue, but with a recipe for economic prosperity that I hope you’ll find equally savory. It’s great to visit Kansas and contribute to the fantastic work at the Kansas Policy Institute. My business at Ginn Economic Consulting works with KPI and 14 other think tanks nationwide. In these capacities, I hear of the attention that Kansas receives for its past tax cuts without spending restraint and current efforts for tax relief. Kansas has been in an economic slow cook for decades, trailing behind national averages in job growth, population increases, and economic output. Much like a poorly tended grill, high taxes, and selective business subsidies have smoked out potential growth, leaving behind more stagnation than sustenance. Let’s chew over some numbers: From 1979 to 2022, Kansas's job growth limped along at just 53% compared to the national average of 88%. Imagine the vibrancy of having an additional 451,000 jobs in the state—jobs that could have been fostered with more competitive tax policies. Moreover, Kansas has seen a net exodus of nearly 198,000 residents since 2000, driven away by a tax environment as welcoming as a blizzard in May. The states with the lowest tax burdens saw an influx of 4.6 million people from domestic migration during the same period, while the high-tax states watched 10.7 million residents pack up and leave. In the most recent IRS data, Kansas lost $2.1 billion in adjusted gross income due to people moving out since 2017. In May 2024, Kansas's unemployment rate ticked up to 2.9%, a slight increase from 2.8% but a revealing one. The total nonfarm payroll employment saw a marginal uptick by 100 jobs last month. Beneath this weak report, there was more weakness as the private sector lost 300 jobs while the government added 400 jobs. This isn’t job growth; it’s a reshuffle at a high cost to private-sector workers. And this is a trend we've seen before. Over the past year, Kansas has seen an overall increase of 24,000 jobs, with the private sector contributing 18,700 and the government sector adding 5,300, or about 20% of the total. Milton Friedman once quipped, “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.” In Kansas, if you continue to rely on excessive taxing and spending for growth, you will find yourself short on more than just jobs and people but on opportunity that drives prosperity. During the recent special session, the Legislature passed several measures to attempt to boost the state’s economic prospects. One notable legislative action was passing a $3 billion STAR bond to attract major sports franchises. Investing in sports is like predicting Kansas weather—unpredictable and always exciting. There is potential for economic rain, but you might be in a financial storm without careful budgeting and rigorous oversight. While what is seen is the possible construction, new jobs around, and new tax revenue, the unseen is costly. This includes the poor precedence for other wasteful acts by the government, higher taxes on those nearby and over time, and the lack of knowledge about what will happen over the next 30 years to the teams, the community, or other costs that come with government planning. Moreover, the recent special session saw positive efforts for broad tax relief, with the key being reducing income tax brackets from three to two, which is a step toward a much-needed flat income tax. Starting in tax year 2024, married Kansans filing jointly would have their taxable income taxed at 5.2% up to $46,000 and at 5.58% above that amount. The changes should significantly impact Kansas by reducing the tax burden and unleashing economic growth as people are incentivized to save, invest, and work. However, the effectiveness of these measures will depend heavily on accompanying spending restraint. Let’s talk about property taxes. Kansas has started the pit on property tax relief, but it’s time to cook it. Tentative tax relief discussions this year hinted at significant cuts, but Kansas should solidify this with a constitutional amendment to limit levy increases. Think of it as putting a leash on a dog prone to running off—you ensure it’s safe and always in sight. The amendment should cap annual increases as low as possible if property taxes increase at all, providing predictability and stability for homeowners and businesses alike. Regarding income taxes, flattening the income tax would turn Kansas from a flyover state into a destination. This move would simplify the tax code, making it fairer and less of a headache—because the only thing Kansans should worry about rising are the sunflowers. While the Legislature tried it this year, you should keep this as part of the approach next time. The reason why is easy to see. States with lower tax burdens consistently show superior economic growth trends; between 1998 and 2022, the ten states with the lowest tax burdens averaged 51% growth in private-sector employment, compared to 34% for the states with the highest burdens. Kansas managed a modest 16% growth during this period, ranking 44th. Kansas is sitting on a $4 billion reserve—it's like having a savings account when you’re deep in credit card debt. You should use this wisely with a responsible budget model that KPI has put forward for years now, allowing spending to grow no more than by population growth plus inflation, preferably by much less to overcome past spending excesses. This isn’t just tightening the belt; it’s ensuring you can still afford it in the future. Responsible budgeting ensures fiscal sustainability and prevents the state from falling into the cycles of budget shortfalls and hasty tax hikes that have plagued Kansas in the past. By following this approach, over-collected taxpayer money, called a “surplus,” can be returned by cutting a flat income tax rate to zero as quickly as possible. Kansas has seen its share of financial missteps, but now is the time for bold action. The legislative decisions made today will determine the state’s economic future. Legislative candidates, you are positioned to lead Kansas into a new era of fiscal responsibility and economic growth. The decisions made in the coming years will determine whether Kansas continues along the path of stagnation or redirects toward prosperity. Consider these policy recommendations not just as suggestions but as necessary steps toward securing a thriving economic future for Kansas. Kansas must also embrace responsible budgeting for these tax cuts to be sustainable. The state should learn from the lesson of excessive spending during the last decade’s troubles, which led to deficits and foolish tax hikes. In fact, the 2025 General Fund budget is 69% higher than in 2017 when Governor Kelly took office, or $3.7 billion higher than inflation over this period. Reining in this excessive use of taxpayer money to spend it on only limited roles outlined in the state’s constitution would provide opportunities for strategic budget cuts and increases of less than the rate of population growth plus inflation. This responsible approach helps ensure fiscal sustainability without compromising essential services. Thank you for your dedication to Kansas and your commitment to principles that enhance not just the economy but also liberty. You can help ensure Kansas becomes a beacon of fiscal responsibility and economic success, where every resident wants to stay and others are eager to join. Roll up your sleeves, sharpen your pencils, and get to work on policies that let Kansans prosper. After all, as Friedman would say, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program"—aim for long-term policies with fewer tradeoffs to support the most opportunities. Thank you, and if you’d like to continue this conversation, I invite you to connect with me at [email protected] and subscribe to my newsletter at www.vanceginn.substack.com. Let’s work together along with the great folks at KPI to create a future where Kansans can truly prosper. Government Spending Is The Problem The late, great economist Milton Friedman said, "The real problem is government spending." This is true as spending comes before taxes or regulations. In fact, if people didn't form a government or politicians didn’t create new programs, then there would be no need for government spending and no need for taxes. And if there was no government spending nor taxes to fund spending then there would be no one to create or enforce regulations. While this might sound like a utopian paradise, which I agree, there are essential limited roles for governments outlined in constitutions and laws. Of course, most governments are doing much more than providing limited roles that preserve life, liberty, and property. This is why I have long been working diligently for more than a decade to get a strong fiscal rule of a spending limit enacted by federal, state, and local governments promptly under my calling to "let people prosper," as effectively limiting government supports more liberty and therefore more opportunities to flourish. Fortunately, there have been multiple state think tanks that have championed this sound budgeting approach through what they've called either the Responsible, Conservative, or Sustainable State Budget. I recently worked with Americans for Tax Reform to publish the Sustainable Budget Project, which provides spending comparisons and other valuable information for every state. This groundbreaking approach was outlined recently in my co-authored op-ed with Grover Norquest of ATR in the Wall Street Journal. When Did This Budget Approach Begin? I started this approach in 2013 with my former colleagues at the Texas Public Policy Foundation with work on the Conservative Texas Budget. The approach is a fiscal rule based on an appropriations limit that covers as much of the budget as possible, ideally the entire budget, with a maximum amount based on the rate of population growth plus inflation and a supermajority (two-thirds) vote to exceed it. A version of this approach was started in Colorado in 1992 with their taxpayer's bill of rights (TABOR), which was championed by key folks like Dr. Barry Poulson and others. (picture below is from a road sign in Texas) Why Population Growth Plus Inflation? While there are many measures to use for a spending growth limit, the rate of population growth plus inflation provides the best reasonable measure of the average taxpayer's ability to pay for government spending without excessively crowding out their productive activities. It is important to look at this from the taxpayer’s perspective rather than the appropriator’s view given taxpayers fund every dollar that appropriators redistribute from the private sector. Population growth plus inflation is also a stable metric reducing uncertainty for taxpayers (and appropriators) and essentially freezes inflation-adjusted per capita government spending over time. The research in this space is clear that the best fiscal rule is a spending limit using the rate of population growth plus inflation, not gross state product, personal income, or other growth rates. In fact, population growth plus inflation typically grows slower than these other rates so that more money stays in the productive private sector where it belongs. To get technical for a moment, personal income growth and gross state product growth are essentially population growth plus inflation plus productivity growth. There's no reasonable consideration that government is more productive over time, so that term would be zero leaving population growth plus inflation. And if you consider the productivity growth in the private sector, then more money should be in that sector at the margin for the greatest rate of return, leaving just population growth plus inflation. Population growth plus inflation becomes the best measure to use no matter how you look at it. Given the high inflation rate more recently, it is wise to use the average growth rate of population growth plus inflation over a number of years to smooth out the increased volatility (ATR's Sustainable Budget Project uses the average rate over the three years prior to a session year). And this rate of population growth plus inflation should be a ceiling and not a target as governments should be appropriating less than this limit. Ideally, governments should freeze or cut government spending at all levels of government to provide more room for tax relief, less regulation, and more money in taxpayers' pockets. Overview of Conservative Texas Budget Approach Figure 1 shows how the growth in Texas’ biennial budget was cut by one-fourth after the creation of the Conservative Texas Budget in 2014 that first influenced the 2015 Legislature when crafting the 2016-17 budget along with changes in the state’s governor (Gov. Greg Abbott), lieutenant governor (Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick), and some legislators. The 8.9% average growth rate of appropriations since then was below the 9.5% biennial average rate of population growth plus inflation since then, which this was drive substantially higher after the latest 2024-25 budget that is well above this key metric (before this biennial budget the growth rate was 5.2% compared with 9.4% in the rate of population growth plus inflation). This approach was mostly put into state law in Texas in 2021 with Senate Bill 1336, as the state already has a spending limit in the constitution. The bill improved the limit to cover all general revenue ("consolidated general revenue") or 55% of the total budget rather than just 45% previously, base the growth limit on the rate of population growth times inflation instead of personal income growth, and raise the vote from a simple majority to three-fifths of both chambers to exceed it instead of a simple majority. There are improvements that should be made to this recent statutory spending limit change in Texas, such as adding it to the constitution and improving the growth rate to population growth plus inflation instead of population growth times inflation calculated by (1+pop)*(1+inf). But this limit is now one of the strongest in the nation as historically the gold standard for a spending limit of the Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) has been watered down over the years by their courts and legislators, as it currently covers just 43% of the budget instead of the original 67%. My Work On The Federal Budget In The White House From June 2019 to May 2020, I took a hiatus from state policy work to serve Americans as the associate director for economic policy ("chief economist") at the White House's Office of Management and Budget. There I learned much about the federal budget, the appropriations process, and the economic assumptions which are used to provide the upcoming 10-year budget projections. In the President's FY 2021 budget, we found $4.6 trillion in fiscal savings and I was able to include the need for a fiscal rule which rarely happens (pic of President Trump's last budget). Sustainable Budget Work With Other States and ATR When I returned to the Texas Public Policy Foundation in May 2020, as I wanted to get back to a place with some sense of freedom during the COVID-19 pandemic and to be closer to family, I started an effort to work on this sound budgeting approach with other state think tanks. This contributed to me working with many fantastic people who are trying to restrain government spending in their states and the federal levels. Here are the latest data on the federal and state budgets as part of ATR's Sustainable Budget Project. From 2014 to 2023, the following happened: Federal spending increased by 81.7%, nearly four times faster than the 23.1% increase in the rate of population growth plus inflation.
Result: American taxpayers could have been spared more than $2.5 trillion in taxes and debt just in 2023 if federal and state governments had grown no faster than the rate of population growth plus inflation during the previous decade. And this would be even more if we considered the cumulative savings over the period. My hope is that if we can get enough state think tanks to promote this budgeting approach, get this approach put into constitutions and statutes, and use it to limit local government spending as well, there will be plenty of momentum to provide sustainable, substantial tax relief and eventually impose a fiscal rule of a spending limit on the federal budget. This is an uphill battle but I believe it is necessary to preserve liberty and provide more opportunities to let people prosper. Sustainable State Budget Revolution Across The Country Below are the states and think tanks which I'm working with and this revolution is going, which you can find an overview of this budgeting approach in Louisiana and should be applied elsewhere. I update these periodically, successful versus not successful budgeting attempts being 20-7 so far.
If you're interested in doing this in your state, please reach out to me. For more details, check out these write-ups on this issue by Grover Norquist and I at WSJ, Dan Mitchell at International Liberty, and The Economist. Don’t miss Episode 66 with 6 things you didn’t read in the news this week:
📊 April's BLS State JOLTS report shows varied job market dynamics with Texas and Florida leading growth. Less government intervention is key to prosperity. 🏫 Louisiana's new universal education savings account program expands K-12 options, showcasing the benefits of school choice. 📉 The latest CBO report highlights a dire fiscal situation, projecting $3 trillion deficits and $51 trillion debt by 2034. Pro-growth policies are crucial. 📈 Michigan needs improvements to sustainable budgeting and economic freedom to boost job creation and living standards. Get the show notes here: https://vanceginn.substack.com #EconomicGrowth #SchoolChoice #FiscalPolicy #JobMarket #ThisWeeksEconomy Originally published at Mackinac Center.
Michigan’s economic health and fiscal policies are critical for its future prosperity. Understanding where the state stands in various economic freedom measures can help identify areas for improvement and guide policy decisions. Fraser Institute Rankings The Fraser Institute publishes the Economic Freedom of North America index, which evaluates how states' policies support economic freedom. The index considers three main areas: government spending, taxes and labor market regulations. Higher scores indicate greater economic freedom. In the latest report, Michigan ranks 31st in economic freedom among U.S. states. This ranking reflects areas where Michigan lags in supporting economic freedom and highlights opportunities for policy improvements. Government Spending: This component measures the size of government relative to the economy. Lower government spending relative to GDP indicates more economic freedom. Michigan ranks 28th, suggesting a need to control spending better. Taxes: This component assesses the impact of taxes on economic incentives. Higher tax burdens discourage investment and economic activity. Michigan ranks 19th, indicating room for tax reforms to enhance economic freedom. Labor Market Regulations: This component examines labor market regulations, such as minimum wage laws and forced membership in a labor union. Stricter regulations can reduce economic freedom by limiting the flexibility of labor markets, thereby making it more difficult for employers and employees to find the best fit for each other. Michigan ranks 38th, so improving labor market regulations can help Michigan enhance its economic freedom ranking — improving opportunities for employers and employees alike. Economic Factors Labor Market: The latest BLS data shows Michigan’s unemployment rate is 3.9%, the same as the U.S. rate. But the number of employed persons increased by only 0.9% over the past year, half the national growth rate of 1.8%. The slower hirings highlight the need for more job opportunities from faster economic growth in Michigan. Employment Trends: According to the Michigan Labor Market Information, the state has seen slow employment growth, with particular struggles in industries such as manufacturing and financial activities. This emphasizes the need for pro-growth policies to make it easier for businesses to grow, leading to more and better-paying jobs. Labor Force Participation Rate: Michigan’s labor force participation rate — the share of people ages 16 and over working or seeking work — is 61.7%. That’s lower than the national average of 62.3%. If you, as a consumer, find fewer employees when you need to talk to someone at a business, that’s an example of why the participation rate matters. Wage Growth: Wage growth in Michigan has been slower than the national average, affecting the economic well-being of its residents. Path to Improvement Tax Reform: Lowering tax rates can support economic growth and attract business investment. Reducing the state income tax and exploring other tax reforms can make Michigan more competitive with other states. A more favorable tax environment can increase business activity, job creation and wages. Regulatory Efficiency: Streamlining regulations can reduce the burdens businesses face. By simplifying regulatoryprocesses and reducing bureaucratic hurdles, Michigan can make it easier for businesses to start and grow, leading to a more vibrant economy with more goods and services available. Spending Discipline: Implementing strict budgetary controls can ensure that spending growth does not exceed the combined rate of inflation and population growth, maintaining the state government’s fiscal stability. Michigan can achieve long-term fiscal health by focusing government spending on areas with the largest impact and eliminating wasteful spending. Labor Improvement: Reinstating a right-to-work law will lead to more jobs. By addressing its economic and fiscal policy weaknesses, Michigan can improve its rankings and create a more robust and dynamic economy. Sustainable budgeting, tax reform and regulatory efficiency are key to unlocking Michigan’s economic potential. By implementing these strategies, Michigan can enhance its economic freedom, attract investment and ensure long-term prosperity for its residents. Originally published at AIER.
As 2025 draws near, America teeters on the brink of a fiscal abyss. This impending fiscal cliff, marked by the end of tax cut provisions and a spending crisis, calls for immediate and decisive action by Congress to avert a worse economic situation than the one Americans feel today. The national debt from excessive government spending is on track to surpass $35 trillion soon, a stark increase of nearly $10 trillion since 2020. This level of debt per citizen exceeds $100,000; per taxpayer, it is nearly $267,000. Such figures are not just numbers but represent a looming burden that future generations will bear — a burden that transcends mere fiscal policy and ventures into the realm of ethical responsibility. The gravity of this debt is exacerbated by the interest payments it necessitates, which have soared to over $1 trillion annually, surpassing what the country spends on national defense. This situation illustrates a troubling scenario where the government, to manage its debt, resorts to issuing more debt, a practice unsustainable by any standard measure of sound budgeting. The economic repercussions of this cycle of debt are profound, leading to higher interest rates, likely increased inflation, and a misallocation of resources that stifles productive private sector activity. Amidst these challenges, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) provisions, set to expire in 2025, play a pivotal role. These tax cuts have been instrumental in supporting economic activity across all income brackets by reducing their tax burden. If these cuts expire, they could reverse the economic gains achieved, reducing disposable income, dampening savings and investment, and contributing to an economic downturn in an already fragile economy. The cessation of these benefits would particularly impact families who have benefited from the near doubling of the standard deduction and enhancements to the child tax credit. Furthermore, the expiration of the $10,000 cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions could have mixed effects; while it may benefit taxpayers in primarily blue, high-tax states, it complicates the fiscal landscape significantly. A balanced approach would be to maintain the increased standard deduction while simplifying the tax code further by eliminating complex provisions like the SALT deduction and the child tax credit, promoting a flatter, more equitable tax system with one low tax rate for everyone. This would also support more economic growth that, combined with spending less, can quickly get our fiscal house in order. This fiscal predicament is further complicated by President Biden’s commitment not to raise taxes on those earning less than $400,000 annually. This promise will be difficult to keep if the TCJA provisions expire without appropriate legislative adjustments, further imperiling his dwindling reelection hopes in November. This situation and recent tariff impositions that affect all income levels would represent a double blow to American taxpayers, dampening economic prospects. As we face these fiscal upheavals, the discretionary spending caps and the debt ceiling, due to expire in 2025, add complexity to an already challenging budgetary environment. The US risks a severe budgetary crisis without thoughtful reform, particularly in the so-called “entitlement programs” like Social Security and Medicare, which consume a substantial portion of the federal budget. These areas must be addressed because both will be essentially bankrupt over the next decade, and millions of recipients will face substantial cuts in benefits. Given all these challenges, fiscal and monetary rules are paramount. Congress should implement a fiscal rule after cutting federal spending to at least the pre-lockdown level in 2019. Implementing rules like the Sustainable American Budget, which caps federal spending based on population growth plus inflation, could provide a sustainable path forward. This approach, supported by Americans for Tax Reform along with the economic insights of Alberto Alesina and John Taylor, advocates for austerity focused on spending restraint and economic growth rather than tax hikes, as some on the “new right” have recently advocated. Regarding a monetary rule, the Fed should return to a single mandate of price stability, cut its bloated balance sheet to at least the pre-lockdown level in 2019, and adopt a strict rule that ideally would be on the growth of its monetary base. These steps would help reduce persistent inflation and remove the extraordinary distortions throughout asset prices and the production process because of years of quantitative easing and low interest rates. Combining these monetary and fiscal rules would provide the necessary checks and balances to give the economy time to heal from massive government failures and help support a stronger institutional framework for economic growth and individual flourishing. Moreover, the regulatory environment has grown increasingly burdensome under the Biden administration, with an estimated $1.6 trillion in new final rules imposed since President Biden took office through May 2024. These rules have been applied across the economy, including financial decisions based on ESG factors influencing the energy sector to increase car emission standards influencing the auto sector. But these ultimately influence producers’ and consumers’ costs of many goods and services. Removing the burden on Americans would unleash economic growth, helping with the fiscal and economic headwinds. The bad policies out of DC have created a dire fiscal and economic situation moving into 2025. If the Trump tax cuts expire, excessive spending will continue unabated, and corrective monetary policy will not happen. Uncertainty and expectations alone will result in a hard landing in the economy, job losses, and elevated inflation. Given the last four years of declining purchasing power for millions of Americans, this result is unacceptable, and the idea of raising taxes to attempt to solve this is naive. Instead, the US must leverage this crisis as an opportunity for sweeping reforms. By returning to principles of fiscal responsibility and market-driven activity, America can navigate away from the fiscal abyss and toward a future of economic stability and prosperity. Though fraught with challenges, this moment offers an unparalleled chance to reshape America’s fiscal landscape, ensuring a legacy of growth and stability for future generations. Originally published at Mackinac Center.
Michigan’s economic and fiscal future hinges on adopting sustainable budgeting practices. Insights from other states show the tangible benefits of fiscal restraint, efficiency, and lower taxes. By examining how other states have managed their budgets, Michigan can learn valuable lessons in improving its fiscal health and thus secure a prosperous future. In 2023, Americans for Tax Reform launched its Sustainable Budget Project. This project monitors state government spending and tracks which states have enacted “sustainable budgets.” The Sustainable Budget Project defines a sustainable budget as one that grows no more than a specific rate: the inflation rate plus population growth, as expressed as a percentage. This project is similar to Mackinac Center’s Sustainable Michigan Budget. For comparison, Texas has focused on fiscal discipline and low taxes, creating a business-friendly environment that attracts investment. It has kept government spending in check, which fosters an environment conducive to economic growth. As a result, it projects a $21 billion surplus next year despite the recent large budget increase. In contrast, California faces a significant economic challenge due to high taxes and heavy spending habits. With the state facing an upcoming budget deficit of at least $45 billion, Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed painful spending cuts to various social programs. This development highlights the risks of unsustainable budgeting. California relies on volatile revenue sources (especially a progressive income tax with high rates) and has failed to implement spending discipline, leaving it in a precarious fiscal situation. Other states, such as Alaska, Colorado, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming have kept spending growth below the rate of population growth plus inflation over the last decade. They’ve maintained lower taxes and enjoyed better economic health even though most of these depend partially on volatile oil and gas activity. These states have demonstrated that sustainable budgeting can lead to greater economic stability and improved quality of life for residents. Their commitment to fiscal discipline has allowed them to weather economic downturns more effectively and avoid severe budget shortfalls. Implications for Michigan Michigan's budget growth outpaces both inflation and population growth, placing a heavy burden on taxpayers. Officials can reduce this burden by adopting sustainable budgeting practices like those of successful states. This will support more economic growth and attract businesses. Sustainable budgeting can also enhance Michigan’s economic resilience, making it less susceptible to economic shocks and fiscal crises, which have historically burdened oil and gas states. The benefits of sustainable budgeting extend beyond fiscal stability. By reducing unnecessary spending and lowering taxes, Michigan can increase disposable income for families, encourage consumer spending, and boost total economic activity. This can lead to more jobs, higher wages and improved living standards for all Michiganders. To achieve sustainable budgeting, Michigan should implement strict budgetary controls, such as spending caps and mandatory budget reviews. Additionally, the state should focus on long-term fiscal and economic health by eliminating wasteful spending, increasing spending prudently and reducing tax burdens. Transparency and accountability in the budget process are also crucial for spending taxpayer money wisely. Sustainable budgeting is not just about balancing the budget — it's about ensuring a brighter future for all Michiganders. By adopting best practices from other states, Michigan can become a model of fiscal discipline and economic vitality, providing a stable and prosperous environment for its residents and future generations. How the Fed Destroys the Economy with Dr. Robert Gmeiner | Let People Prosper Show Ep. 1016/17/2024 Join me for Episode 101 of the Let People Prosper Show, where I discuss with the insightful Dr. Robert Gmeiner how the Federal Reserve's actions affect our economy. Dr. Gmeiner is an Assistant Professor of Financial Economics at Methodist University.
We Explore: 📉 How the Federal Reserve distorts market activity and creates inflation. 📊 How the Fed’s actions harm economic growth and manipulate interest rates. 💡 Why fiscal policy is not the primary cause of inflation. 🔮 How you should plan to deal with elevated inflation for years to come. Like, subscribe, and share the Let People Prosper Show, and visit vanceginn.substack.com for more insights from me, my research, and ways to invite me on your show, give a speech, and more. Don’t miss the latest economic news in 11 minutes:
🎙️ Inflation Concerns & Fed’s Bloated Balance Sheet 🌱 ESG Divestment & Bank Regulation Issues 💸 Biden’s New Tariffs: A Step Backwards! Thank you for watching! Please like, share, and subscribe for more insights. For more info, subscribe to my newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com and check out vanceginn.com. Did you know...
📈 Inflation remains high at 3.3% y/y, and the Fed's slow response is not helping. 📊 The latest jobs report shows a shift to part-time work and declining labor force participation, with real wages declining. 🏡 The Texas GOP's priorities miss key issues like spending restraint and property tax elimination, which are crucial for economic growth. Listen, like, share, and subscribe. Check out my newsletter for show notes and more at www.vanceginn.substack.com. It's a pleasure to speak with the Texas Aggregates and Concrete Association again and enjoy the great resort here with my wife and three young kids. While aggregates and concrete may not always be in the spotlight, they are the bedrock of our infrastructure, forming the foundation upon which we build our homes, businesses, and communities.
Reflecting on my journey, I realize how essential the right direction and strong institutions are in shaping our paths. Much like the solid foundation of concrete, institutions give us the stability to build and grow. Like the economy, my life has been a series of peaks and troughs. In my younger years, I grew up in a low-income, single-mother household in South Houston as my dad had epilepsy, and they divorced when I was five years old. I went to private school from K-2 grades, public school from 3-6 grades, and home school from 7-12. Unlike many of you, I took many risks during my teenage years and began playing drums in a band called "Sindrome," living the rockstar life. But a near-fatal car accident in 2002 was my wake-up call, one of several but the one that turned me toward a brighter path. Through this experience, a month in bed with many bumps and bruises, and a lot of prayer, I found my purpose: to help others through my calling to let people prosper. We find ourselves at a pivotal point in our country and in Texas. The recent elections tell us that there is a clear call for change in the Lone Star State. The upcoming November elections will be another opportunity for the country to steer towards a path of prosperity or continue down a troubling road. As an optimist, I believe in our potential, but I also recognize our country and state's many economic, political, and cultural issues. Policy Uncertainty and Economic Volatility At the national level, we face several economic challenges. The Biden administration has been keen on infrastructure spending, which includes the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. While this aims to rejuvenate our infrastructure, it also raises concerns about efficiency and the role of government in these projects, and the fact that we are running deficits higher than that per year with the national debt at nearly $35 trillion and net interest payments of $1 trillion exceeding national defense expenditures of about $860 billion. Excessive government spending, increased regulation, and interventionist policies often lead to inefficiencies and distortions in the market. Milton Friedman, my favorite economist, warned about the dangers of heavy government involvement, advocating instead for free-market solutions that empower individuals and businesses. Election years heighten policy uncertainty, which can drive economic volatility. Businesses and investors become cautious, waiting to see which policies will prevail. This hesitation can slow economic activity, affecting everything from job creation to investment in new projects. For the aggregates and concrete industry, this means potential delays in infrastructure projects and fluctuations in demand. Milton Friedman once said, "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years, there’d be a shortage of sand." This sharp but insightful remark underscores the inefficiency that often accompanies government intervention. In his view, infrastructure projects should be managed by private entities with a direct stake in the outcome and can respond more agilely to changes and needs. Here in Texas, we are not immune to these challenges. Our state is known for its robust economy and low taxes, but we're grappling with excessive government spending and high property taxes. The Texas Comptroller's report highlights how our spending on transportation is around $10 billion annually. While infrastructure is crucial, we must be mindful of how these funds are used to ensure they generate real value for taxpayers. Weak Labor Market Amid Headlines of Strength Despite headlines showing strength, the U.S. labor market reveals underlying weaknesses. Nearly half of Americans think we are in a recession, reflecting a disconnect between reported statistics and personal experiences. Real average weekly earnings have declined by nearly 4% since January 2021, squeezing household budgets and diminishing purchasing power. The labor force participation rate remains low at 62.5%, significantly below the February 2020 level. If participation were the same as it was then, the unemployment rate would be closer to 6% rather than the reported 4% today. Texas, however, leads in job gains, which is a testament to our state's resilient economy. Yet, we must acknowledge that the 25% increase in the two-year state budget last year was excessive. This surge in spending did not provide sufficient property tax relief, which is critical for maintaining economic vitality and keeping Texas attractive for businesses and residents alike. Moreover, we must prioritize universal school choice next year to ensure educational opportunities that meet diverse needs and drive future economic growth. Election Year Volatility During election years, the stakes are even higher. Uncertainty about future policies can cause volatility in markets and economic performance. For instance, debates over infrastructure funding, environmental regulations, and tax policies can create an unstable business environment. Companies may delay or cancel projects, affecting the demand for aggregates and concrete. This uncertainty trickles down, impacting jobs, investments, and overall economic health. Aggregates and concrete are essential for the development and maintenance of our infrastructure. These materials for things like highways and homes are our physical landscape's backbone. However, it's crucial to approach their use smartly. We don't need to resort to industrial policies with high costs and trade-offs, burdening taxpayers. Instead of a top-down approach, which often fails due to bureaucratic inefficiencies, we should consider a bottom-up approach to transportation projects. This includes government projects, public-private partnerships, and private projects. A significant portion of infrastructure could be managed through private toll roads. While my ideal vision leans heavily on privatization and tax cuts, I recognize that a balanced approach is more realistic in the current environment. Public-private partnerships can bring innovation and efficiency, reducing the burden on taxpayers while still delivering essential infrastructure. Let me share an example from my work. My research finds that private toll roads can often be built faster and cheaper than public projects. Private companies are directly incentivized to minimize costs and maximize efficiency. For instance, the LBJ Express project in Dallas, a public-private partnership, was completed ahead of schedule and under budget, demonstrating the potential benefits of such collaborations. There is also a need to move to design-build for projects in Texas rather than today's more costly and time-consuming design-bid-build approach. Additionally, Texas is experiencing significant population growth, with more people moving to the state, increasing the demand for our infrastructure. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is investing in expanding highways and improving ports to accommodate this growth. Projects like the $7.5 billion North Houston Highway Improvement Project aim to address these demands. However, we must ensure that these investments are managed efficiently and effectively. Role of Institutions and Central Planning Another key aspect is the role of institutions. Friedrich Hayek, in his book "The Road to Serfdom," cautioned against the overreach of central planning. He emphasized that central planning often leads to inefficiencies and a loss of individual freedoms. His insights are particularly relevant today as we navigate the complexities of modern infrastructure development. To truly flourish, Texas needs to embrace more free-market capitalism and resist the creeping influence of socialism in our economy. This applies to transportation and beyond. By focusing on the efficient use of resources, reducing regulatory burdens, and fostering competition, we can build a more prosperous future. The bottom-up approach not only ensures better utilization of resources but also empowers local communities to take charge of their development, aligning projects more closely with the actual needs and priorities of the people. Consider the example of toll roads in other states. Using private toll roads in Virginia has significantly improved traffic flow and reduced congestion in previously bottleneck areas. This model can be replicated in Texas, where traffic congestion is growing, especially in urban areas. By allowing private companies to manage and maintain these roads, we can ensure they are kept in optimal condition without continuously draining public funds. Furthermore, private toll roads can be a source of innovation. Companies can introduce advanced technologies for traffic management and toll collection, making the entire system more efficient. For example, using electronic toll collection systems in Florida has greatly reduced vehicles' time at toll booths, enhancing the overall travel experience. However, this doesn't mean we should eliminate public involvement in infrastructure projects. There are instances where government intervention is necessary, especially in projects that may not be immediately profitable but are crucial for public access and economic activity. This is where public-private partnerships come into play, allowing us to leverage the strengths of both sectors. The government should act as a facilitator rather than a direct manager of projects. By setting clear regulations and standards, it can ensure that private companies operate fairly and efficiently while also protecting the interests of the public. This approach can help us avoid the pitfalls of excessive government control while still reaping the benefits of private sector efficiency. Paul Krugman and other progressives might argue that significant government intervention is necessary to address market failures and ensure equitable outcomes. They believe that without government oversight, critical infrastructure could suffer from underinvestment, and social inequalities could worsen. While these points are worth considering, history has shown us that excessive government control often leads to inefficiencies, higher costs, and reduced innovation. Learning from Failures and Future Outlook My journey from poverty to rockstar to entrepreneurial economist taught me the value of strong institutions and the importance of aligning personal purpose with societal needs. This principle applies to our infrastructure as well. Just as a solid foundation is critical for a stable building, a robust institutional framework is essential for a thriving economy. We must ensure that our policies and investments in infrastructure reflect this understanding. As we look toward the future, we must remain vigilant against the encroachment of socialist policies that threaten to undermine the free-market principles that have made Texas a beacon of prosperity. Instead, we should champion policies that promote individual liberty, economic freedom, and responsible stewardship of resources. Failure provides us with valuable lessons, and too often, people want to mitigate this by expanding government intervention, which can be detrimental to our learning and growth. We are at a critical juncture in our state's history. The recent elections have shown us that Texans are ready for a change. The upcoming November elections present another opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to the principles that have made Texas great. While I am optimistic about our future, we must address the economic, political, and cultural challenges that threaten our way of life. Election Year Volatility and Policy Uncertainty One of the most pressing issues is the rise of big government. Across the political spectrum, there is a growing tendency to rely on government intervention to solve problems. This trend is particularly concerning in Texas, where we have traditionally prided ourselves on independence and self-reliance. Many of you might be demanding the government give you handouts or reap the benefits of federal, state, or local spending, but all this comes from taxpayers' pockets. We must try a different approach. Election year volatility adds another layer of complexity. Businesses and investors are left guessing about the future as policies swing with the political tide. This uncertainty can stall projects, delay investments, and increase costs. The aggregates and concrete industry, heavily reliant on long-term planning and stability, feels these effects acutely. Conclusion In conclusion, aggregates and concrete are vital for Texas's growth, but their smart use is paramount. Let's leverage the strengths of the free market, prioritize efficiency, and ensure that our infrastructure investments truly benefit Texans. As we progress, I am eager to collaborate with any of you on projects aligning with these principles. Together, we can build a stronger, more prosperous Texas. For those interested in further discussions on economic policy and free-market solutions, I invite you to check out my podcast, the Let People Prosper Show on all major platforms, and my Substack newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com, where I delve into these topics in greater detail. You can also visit my website, VanceGinn.com, for more information and resources. Thank you for your time and attention. Let's work together to build a future where smart infrastructure investment and strong institutions pave the way for a prosperous Texas. Originally published at AIER.
Both major presidential candidates, Joe Biden and Donald Trump, have leaned towards protectionism, a stance recently echoed by Terry Schilling in The American Conservative. Unfortunately, this perspective misses the mark. Protectionism is not the solution to revitalize American manufacturing or the economy. The real culprits are flawed internal policies — excessive government spending, high taxes, and stringent regulations — that stifle growth and innovation. Politicians from both sides of the aisle often scapegoat countries like China and Mexico for the decline in US manufacturing. This narrative overlooks reality. Technological advancements and productivity gains are the primary drivers of change in manufacturing, and that’s a good thing for the many beneficiaries at the expense of the few. Industrial production in manufacturing has remained relatively flat, indicating stable output despite economic fluctuations, while manufacturing employment has declined significantly, reflecting the sector’s increased productivity and automation. In short, we don’t need as many hard jobs to provide the same output, and those displaced individuals can find better avenues to flourish, even with tough transitions. While it would be great if there were a way to protect everyone’s job, this is a fool’s errand resulting in control by politicians and bureaucrats in government at the expense of everyone else. Free-market capitalism is needed now more than ever, not big-government socialism, which is already sending us down the road to serfdom. American manufacturing’s decline is largely due to domestic policies that reject free-market capitalism, thereby hindering economic growth. Progressive policies have led to excessive government spending, high taxes, and overregulation. The federal government is spending about 25 percent of GDP and running nearly $2 trillion deficits, including paying about $1 trillion in net interest payments annually, even with record-high tax collections. Add to this how the Competitive Enterprise Institute reports federal regulations cost the US economy $1.9 trillion annually, equivalent to 7 percent of GDP. Spending and regulations shackle about one-third of our economy, creating perverse incentives for businesses and workers to compete and innovate. The Trump administration’s efforts to boost manufacturing through tariffs led to trade wars that aimed to bring jobs back to the US. These measures backfired, however, increasing costs for American businesses and consumers, as tariffs are just taxes on Americans. Manufacturing output saw little sustained improvement, and employment gains were modest and short-lived. Deficit spending, which contributed to an appreciated currency from foreigners’ demand for the US dollar, made it cheaper to purchase foreign goods, exacerbating the trade deficit. The trade deficit expanded even after Trump imposed tariffs on Chinese goods. Similarly, the Biden administration’s attempts to revitalize the sector through initiatives like the American Jobs Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act have yet to do more than drive up the deficit and prop up specific markets. Despite potentially good intentions, these policies have yet to deliver the promised results, often perpetuating the same issues of overregulation and high spending. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which replaced NAFTA and mentioned in the piece, introduced more protectionist measures than its predecessor. The USMCA’s stringent labor and content rules have complicated trade and increased production costs, undermining its effectiveness in promoting free trade. These provisions counter what should have been done to promote more trade and prosperity. It is wise to remember that free trade has provided the best opportunities for people to prosper and has significantly reduced extreme poverty globally, including in China. America should not isolate itself from other countries, as we benefit from a growing global demand for our products and the supply of goods we can purchase from abroad. Consumers and producers in America are better off with more domestic and international trade. As we don’t want to produce everything we consume daily, trading with others is the most efficient way to meet our needs. Our national debt, driven by excessive government spending, is a significant economic burden. This debt will continue to grow without the resolve to cut spending and implement a strong spending limit. The Federal Reserve’s monetary policy, which has reduced purchasing power and higher inflation, also impacts manufacturing and should be regulated through a monetary rule. The PROVE IT Act aims to ensure that carbon emissions from imports are accurately measured. Still, the underlying assumption of a need to tax carbon dioxide — a necessary component of life — is flawed. Pigouvian taxes are problematic because they often target the wrong factors at incorrect tax rates, essentially serving as tools for government overreach rather than effective economic policy. The focus should be on minimizing government control over economic actions, which create more problems. A carbon tax or one of its spinoffs is a misguided attempt to control what the EPA doesn’t consider a pollutant, leading to worse outcomes for everyone, especially the poor. Another way to improve relationships with countries and put more collective pressure on China to liberalize while meeting the needs of consumers and producers in America would have been to approve a version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This trade agreement negotiated by the Obama administration allowed expanded free trade with 11 other Asia-Pacific countries (Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam). By partnering with multiple countries, America could have promoted free trade practices that fostered a more robust economic environment that competes with China, Russia, and other potential adversaries. The TPP, as detailed by the Council on Foreign Relations, aims to enhance trade and economic integration across the Asia-Pacific region, providing significant benefits to all member nations. The TPP would reduce tariffs, establish common trade standards, and open new markets for American goods and services, ultimately leading to greater economic growth and job creation at home. Unfortunately, Trump rejected the TPP when he took office in 2017 instead of trying to negotiate the TPP better. While America was left out, the other 11 countries joined trade agreements after TPP’s demise, a major setback for Americans that could have been avoided. Revitalizing American manufacturing requires addressing internal policy failures rather than blaming foreign competition. We can ensure long-term prosperity by reducing government interference, embracing free trade, and fostering a competitive environment. The better path forward with fewer trade-offs lies in free-market principles, which have the power to drive innovation, efficiency, and economic growth. It’s time to shift the focus from protectionism to fostering a robust, open market that benefits everyone. In This 100th Episode, Dr. Norman Horn, founder and president of the Libertarian Christian Institute, and I celebrate the 100th Let People Prosper Show episode and explore:
📜 Limited Roles of Government: What are the true, limited roles that government should play in our lives? 🎉 Libertarian Convention Recap: How was the Libertarian Convention, and what were the key takeaways? 🔍 Policy Comparisons: Comparing the policies of Joe Biden (Democrat candidate), Donald Trump (Republican candidate), and Chase Oliver (Libertarian candidate). ⚖️ Big-Government Conservatism: Why are Conservative Nationalists and Christian Nationalists essentially big-government, old-school progressives? 🌟 Future of Liberty: What should the future look like for liberty and prosperity? Like, subscribe, and share the Let People Prosper Show, and visit vanceginn.substack.com and vanceginn.com for show notes and more insights from me, my research, and ways to book me on your show. Did you know…
🏡 91% of Gen Z see housing affordability as crucial in choosing the next president. 📊 Recent reports show a move to part-time work and declining full-time positions, with inflation-adjusted purchasing power falling. 🏦 The FDIC's complex regulations and internal issues hinder bank efficiency and increase costs. Listen, like, share, and subscribe to find out and learn much more. Originally published by American Energy Institute. Your browser does not support viewing inline PDFs. Click here to view the PDF. Originally published at OCPA.
In 2022, Oklahoma lawmakers passed the state’s “Energy Discrimination Elimination Act” (EDEA), which requires the office of the state treasurer to conduct a review of firms to identify those that boycott investments in oil-and-gas companies due to their embrace of so-called “Environmental Social Governance” (ESG) policies. State entities, including state pension funds, cannot contract with firms on that list. In April, the Oklahoma Rural Association released a study that claimed the Energy Discrimination Elimination Act has increased municipal borrowing costs by 15.7 percent. But now a new study, released by the American Energy Institute, has examined the Oklahoma Rural Association’s work and found it riddled with flaws and omissions that skewed its findings. “As we release this comprehensive analysis, it’s clear that the Energy Discrimination Elimination Act of 2022 is crucial for safeguarding Oklahoma’s economic interests and ensuring sound fiduciary practices,” said Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute. “Our research debunks the flawed claims against the EDEA, highlighting its role in protecting vital energy sectors and promoting financial stability for the state.” “Fact versus Fiction: Examining Oklahoma’s Energy Discrimination Elimination Act of 2022” was authored by Vance Ginn, former chief economist of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and a fellow at the American Energy Institute, and Byron Schlomach, an economist with 30 years’ experience in state-level public policy who served on the Piedmont City Council and was the director of the 1889 Institute in Oklahoma. The two men examined the “Energy Discrimination Elimination Act” and the Oklahoma Rural Association’s critique of the law, and found the critique deeply flawed. “The Oklahoma Rural Association’s report on the state’s Energy Discrimination Elimination Act and its purported impact on municipal borrowing costs contains significant methodological flaws,” Ginn and Schlomach write. “It fails to establish a causal relationship between the EDEA and higher municipal borrowing costs. Changes in federal policy with respect to the oil industry, first positive under President Trump and now decidedly negative under President Biden, are more plausible explanations for Oklahoma’s relatively increased borrowing costs. Furthermore, the push towards ESG investing overlooks the opportunity costs associated with divesting from reliable energy sources like oil and gas, which are crucial to Oklahoma’s economy.” Due to the flaws in the Oklahoma Rural Association study, Ginn and Schlomach conclude that it “should not be used as a reason to question or delay the implementation of protections put in place by the elected representatives of states like Oklahoma and Texas against asset managers using the assets of those states to push ESG-aligned political objectives.” Instead, they write that policymakers should “ensure that investment decisions prioritize profitability and fiduciary responsibilities over politically driven, subjective ESG criteria through increased transparency, independent audits, and clear rules. This approach will better safeguard economic interests and promote sustainable growth, benefiting the broader community and the environment.” Among the problems that Ginn and Schlomach identify in the Oklahoma Rural Association report is the fact that a comparison of Oklahoma municipal bonds with a national index “shows Oklahoma’s interest rates varied by less since September 2022, before the law went into effect in November 2022 and when the Treasurer issued the restricted financial companies list in May 2023.” “This indicates that EDEA did not cause interest rate movements and that the paper’s results come from cherry-picking the data and specific states,” Ginn and Schlomach write. The two economists also write that the Oklahoma Rural Association report overlooked other important factors, “such as the upward trend in interest rates,” and also contained “methodological challenges of correlation versus causation.” The Oklahoma Rural Association’s report claims the EDEA has increased municipal borrowing costs by approximately 59 basis points (0.59 percent), a 15.7 percent increase compared to some states, and attributes that increase to reduced financial competition that the report suggests has been created by the EDEA. However, Ginn and Schlomach note that the Oklahoma Rural Association report notably omitted New Mexico from the selected neighboring states examined, “raising questions about whether the chosen states moved in parallel with Oklahoma before the EDEA’s implementation.” In addition, they note that “a substantial outflow of funds from municipal bonds” occurred nationwide in 2022 and 2023. Ginn and Schlomach note that Oklahoma’s municipal borrowing interest rates were “trending upward long before the EDEA’s passage and implementation.” And the two economists argue that the Oklahoma Rural Association report fails to address the negative impact of ESG investing strategies on Oklahoma. “Divesting from reliable energy sources like oil and gas in favor of renewable energy projects often result in lower returns and economic disruptions,” Ginn and Schlomach write. “States with significant economic output from the oil and gas sector, such as Oklahoma and Texas, face significant spillover effects from reduced investment in these industries. These spillover effects include job losses, reduced economic activity, and lower tax revenues, which ultimately create ripple effects on the broader state economy.” Further, using ESG criteria in public pension funds and state investments “can lead to lower financial performance and increased risks, as highlighted by critiques and evidence.” “EDEA is specifically designed to counteract the growing trend among financial institutions to shun investments in fossil fuel industries due to ESG pressures,” Ginn and Schlomach write. “By enforcing this law, Oklahoma ensures that its oil and gas sectors, which are crucial to its economy, remain robust and well-funded.” Originally published at Kansas Policy Institute.
As Kansas gears up for a special legislative session in two weeks, the state stands at a pivotal point. Governor Laura Kelly’s call to reconvene the legislature after vetoing three key tax relief bills this year, let alone what she vetoed previously, indicates the struggle to pass pro-growth policies. For Kansas to thrive, it must pursue significant income tax reductions complemented by responsible budgeting. Despite an appealing low unemployment rate of 2.8%, a deeper look at Kansas’ labor statistics reveals significant challenges. The labor force participation rate, the share of residents either working or actively looking for work, has dropped to a historic low of 66.1% since 1977, and the workforce has been flat since 2008. This stagnation points to a need for reform policies that do more than temporarily boost employment numbers—they must encourage sustainable work and investment. Current tax relief discussions, including proposals to eliminate the state’s 2% sales tax on groceries, reduce the current 20 mill state property tax levy for K12 education, and end the state income tax on Social Security benefits, though politically attractive, do not provide the necessary economic improvements as cutting personal income taxes:
In contrast, flattening and cutting income taxes would dramatically improve Kansas’s economic environment. As noted in a recent report by The Buckeye Institute for KPI, this sort of pro-growth tax policy in Kansas would make the state more attractive to entrepreneurs and skilled workers, fostering an ecosystem ripe for innovation and investment that increases economic growth and job creation across sectors, contributing to a wider tax base and more tax collections. Kansas must also embrace responsible budgeting for these tax cuts to be sustainable. The state should learn from the lesson of excessive spending during the last decade’s troubles, which led to deficits and foolish tax hikes. This can be achieved by spending on only limited roles outlined in the state’s constitution, providing opportunities for strategic budget cuts and growth of no more than the rate of population growth plus inflation. This balanced approach helps ensure fiscal sustainability without compromising essential services. The upcoming special session is a golden opportunity to initiate significant economic reforms. By adopting bold income tax cuts and responsible budgeting, Kansas can set a prosperity cycle that benefits all residents. This approach goes beyond temporary fixes to establish a solid foundation for future economic stability and growth, which can’t be achieved with the other proposals. Now is the time to implement visionary reforms that position Kansas as a smart, growth-oriented fiscal policy leader. This special session is ideal for Kansas to boldly step into a future marked by robust economic health and lasting prosperity. By seizing this moment to enact significant tax cuts and set the table for disciplined spending, Kansas can ensure its competitiveness and prosperity for generations. Let this session be remembered when Kansas took bold steps to secure its economic future, setting a precedent for fiscal responsibility and proactive economic strategies that lead to a flourishing state. Join my conversation with Dr. Judge Glock, director of research and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, on the latest Let People Prosper Show podcast.
We explore: 🗽 America's Economic Landscape: What's working and what's not? 🏠 Housing Market Fixes: Key issues and practical solutions. 💸 Debt Crisis Solutions: National and local debt challenges and how to tackle them. Like, subscribe, and share the Let People Prosper Show, and visit vanceginn.substack.com and vanceginn.com for more. |
Vance Ginn, Ph.D.
|