For all the excitement about the incoming administration and a return to the 2019 economy, market stability rests on the precarious assumption that the government will eventually put its fiscal house in order.
With inflation risks persisting and entitlement spending surging, the situation cannot be ignored. But we never should have gotten to this point to begin with.
The high cost of complying with our tax code encourages wasteful tax avoidance strategies and distorts work and investment decisions.
Privatization isn't about cutting corners; it's about unleashing and leveraging the ingenuity and competitiveness of the private sector to deliver better services at lower costs.
By one account, regulations cost American households over $15,000 per year. Here's hoping DOGE can help.
Doing nothing will lead to Medicare benefits being cut by 11 percent and Social Security Benefits being cut by 23 percent in less than a decade.
Most people don't realize it, but if you're a U.S. citizen, the IRS wants to know about all the money you earn, no matter where in the world you earn it.
Despite its enormous budget and vast regulatory powers, the agency has failed to detect major frauds while wasting time and money on relatively useless disclosures.
Trump is talking about cutting government spending, but that's mostly in Congress' hands.
From art to vice to games and maybe a little magic, Reason's staff is here to help you with your gift giving.
In the Abolish Everything issue, Reason writers make the case for ending the DEA, ICE, the SBA, and everything else.
Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan used the state to achieve political aims that have nothing to do with keeping markets competitive. J.D. Vance has said she's done "a good job."
Like all government perks, SBA lending creates unseen victims.
Even before the pandemic spending increase, the budget deficit was approaching $1 trillion. The GOP has the chance to embrace fiscal sanity this time if they can find the political will.
If Musk is truly serious about fiscal discipline, he'll advise the president-elect to eschew many of the policies he promised on the campaign trail.
The bipartisan embrace of industrial policy represents one of the most dangerous economic illusions of our time.
Even the poorest citizens of free countries fare better than the middle classes in economically repressive nations.
Both candidates have promised a litany of special favors to handpicked constituencies. If you don't fit into the right categories, you'll pay the price.
As it stands, the program effectively redistributes money from younger and poorer people to richer people.
When they entered the White House, the budget deficit was a pandemic-influenced $2.3 trillion, and it was set to fall to $905 billion by 2024. It's now twice what it was supposed to be.
If the former president wins the 2024 race, the circumstances he would inherit are far more challenging, and several of his policy ideas are destructive.
The America of the past grew in spite of tariffs, not because of them.
The idea, proposed by former President Donald Trump, could curb waste and step in where our delinquent legislators are asleep on the job.
Housing costs, job availability, energy prices, and technological advancement all hinge on a web of red tape that is leaving Americans poorer and less free.
Both campaigns represent variations on a theme of big, fiscally irresponsible, hyper-interventionist government.
A new poll challenges the protectionist narrative currently dominating both sides of the political aisle.
The campaign promise from Donald Trump sounds nice, but it would be disastrous when considering the program is already racing toward insolvency.
People making the same income should be paying the same level of taxes no matter how they choose to live their lives.
The New Right talks a big populist game, but their policies hurt the people they're supposed to help.
There seems to be general bipartisan agreement on keeping a majority of the cuts, which are set to expire. They can be financed by cleaning out the tax code of unfair breaks.
Although former President Donald Trump's deregulatory agenda would make some positive changes, it's simply not enough.
The U.S. has successfully navigated past debt challenges, notably in the 1990s. Policymakers can fix this if they find the will to do so.
The candidate who grasps the gravity of this situation and proposes concrete steps to address it will demonstrate the leadership our nation now desperately needs. The stakes couldn't be higher.
Chevron deference, a doctrine created by the Court in 1984, gives federal agencies wide latitude in interpreting the meaning of various laws. But the justices may overturn that.
The president has tried to shift blame for inflation, interest rate hikes, and an overall decimation of consumers' purchasing power.
Reasonable options include gradually raising the minimum retirement age, adjusting benefits to reflect longer life expectancies, and implementing fair means-testing to ensure benefits flow where they're actually needed.
Why aren't politicians on both sides more worried than they seem to be?
Despite both presidential candidates touting protectionist trade policy, tariffs do little to address the underlying factors that make it difficult for U.S. manufacturers to compete in the global marketplace.
Price controls lead to the misallocation of resources, shortages, diminished product quality, and black markets.
Private unions have every right to exist, but that doesn't mean they're actually beneficial on net.
No technology exists today to enable railroads to comply with the state's diktat, which villainizes a mode of transportation that is actually quite energy efficient.
Let's just call this what it is: another gimmick for Congress to escape its own budget limits and avoid having a conversation about tradeoffs.
There are many pervasive myths about the U.S. tax code. Here are a few.
Despite their informal nature, those norms have historically constrained U.S. fiscal policy. But they're eroding.
These handouts will flow to businesses—often big and rich—for projects they would likely have taken on anyway.
The question of how best to measure inflation has no single and straightforward answer, but most people know that the president's economic claims aren't true.
Economic nationalists are claiming the deal endangers "national security" to convince Americans that a good deal for investors, employees, and the U.S. economy will somehow make America less secure. That's nonsense.
Support for industrial policy and protectionism are supposed to help the working class. Instead, these ideas elevate the already privileged.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
