Tom Giovanetti is president of the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI), a 38-year-old conservative, free-market public policy “think tank” based in Dallas, Texas.
In addition to his administrative and fundraising duties, Tom writes for IPI and for leading publications on a variety of policy topics including tax policy, economic growth, self-government, civil liberties and constitutional protections, judicial supremacy, intellectual property, Social Security personal accounts, technology and Internet policy, and government spending. In addition to being regularly published in major outlets including the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, FoxNews.com and The Dallas Morning News, Tom writes often for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Tom frequently appears in the media and is a regular guest and occasional substitute host of the Mark Davis Show in the Dallas-Fort Worth market.
Tom loves thinking out-of-the-box to design novel solutions to policy problems and explaining complicated policy issues in ways average folks can understand.
Tom's mission at IPI is to use issues to teach conservative, free market thinking and to push back against unprincipled populism. He seeks to encourage continued skepticism of Big Government, to maintain faith in markets, and to defend individual liberty as the best means of achieving human flourishing. His most recent work has focused on free market solutions to student loan debt, preserving online freedom, and persuading state legislatures to override local and municipal rules that restrict economic liberty.
Mr. Giovanetti has represented IPI at many national and international organizations, including the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and represented IPI during negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. Mr. Giovanetti is a popular speaker and writer and testifies before state and federal legislative committees on a variety of topics.
Follow Tom on Twitter (X) at @tgiovanetti
Our Take: The Gorsuch Warning (on Slaughter)
Congress spent decades transferring legislative and judicial powers to supposedly independent agencies. That was a violation of the nondelegation doctrine, but that’s another topic. Now, after the administrative state has accrued enormous powers, the court has given the president total control.
The constitutional answer is not to deny that the president controls the executive branch. The answer must be for Congress to reclaim the powers it should never have delegated.
We Can't Work It Out
Why can’t Republicans and Democrats work together to solve problems? If you want your representatives to fight for you and destroy those who disagree with you, I’m sorry, but consider the possibility that you’re the problem.
There's No Such Thing as a Free Input
Data centers pay for their electricity. They pay for their water. And AI should pay for its content inputs, too.
Why the Blanching over Todd Blanche?
How can it possibly be ethical for a president to sue an agency he completely controls, and negotiate a settlement with an attorney general he appointed? That’s not a negotiation between adversarial parties—that’s a sweetheart deal—especially since Trump was not going to win any of those lawsuits or claims on their merits.
Election Security Is None of the President's Business
The Constitution gives states control over their own elections. Executive branch interference in state elections is a violation of separation of powers. If Washington attempts to influence or take control of state elections, the states should resist, for the sake of the Republic.
What's In the SAVE America Act?
Now that you know what is really in the SAVE America Act, does it strike you as more important than anything else Congress could possibly be doing? It is worth ending the filibuster over?
Or is it possible that this is mostly an unnecessary intrusion on federalism designed to satisfy a president’s private obsession?
To Fix Housing Woes, Texas Leaders Shouldn't Waste Time on This
When the Texas Legislature returns to session in January, state lawmakers should look beyond re-litigating institutional homeownership and focus on changes at the state and local level that will truly make housing more available and affordable.
Our Take: The Court Gets Birthright Citizenship Decision Half-Right
It was always unlikely that the Court was going to issue a sweeping decision overturning the prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment, because of the two axes we described earlier.
It’s important to remember that the Supreme Court is never the final say on any matter of controversy. The political process always has the final say. The political process can make, change or eliminate laws; amend the Constitution; elect the people who nominate and confirm Supreme Court justices; and in extreme circumstances, even impeach justices. Only the Court itself has asserted that it has the final say on constitutional issues.
Don't Take Wi-Fi for Granted
Auction revenue matters, but it should not be the final determinant of spectrum policy. If policymakers want the connected economy to keep working for consumers, homes, businesses and innovators, they must continue making the world safe for Wi-Fi.
It's Hopeless to Fight Fraud in a Ginormous Government
The real problem is big government. The bigger the government, the more opportunities there are for fraud.
That’s why at IPI we argue for limited government, not better government. Better government is nice, sure, but also not very likely.
Total Records: 768
