Central planning from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, President Donald Trump, and others reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes private markets work.
The fiscal objection is serious. But the deeper problem is that the proposal misunderstands the saving behavior of the households it aims to help.
Every dollar of well-intentioned government assistance comes with a behavioral price tag that we've largely refused to count.
And the government's "solution" is making it worse.
The United States has the most progressive income-tax system in the developed world.
It would be easy to wave it away and move on. But that's how the U.S. got in such a dire fiscal situation.
The reversal wasn't because the economics changed. It is because their biggest shareholders turned toward industrial policy.
Lawmakers used to offset its emergency spending. They don't anymore.
The state's funding crisis is driven by a third-party payment system in which roughly 90 cents of every American health care dollar is paid by someone other than the patient.
The problem is not that the government collects too little. It's that the government spends too much.
The employer insurance exclusion has chained workers to their employers, practically eliminated consumer price sensitivity, and suppressed wages.
American businesses and consumers absorbed nearly 90 percent of the 2025 tariffs' economic burden, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found.
The cost of paying the interest is now the central story, and it's a grim one.
Inflation is a silent tax—and the most painful way to finance government promises.
Across advanced economies, they have repeatedly been narrowed or even repealed after delivering disappointing revenue, tax avoidance, capital flight, and costly administrative battles.
Such attempts try to engineer outcomes while acting like political favors can substitute for market incentives.
Many Republicans are now openly embracing ideas from the progressive playbook. Call them "Depublicans."
The real squeeze comes from government-distorted markets, not economic decline.
Medicaid fraud has been endemic at the state and federal levels for decades. Focusing on a single official or state misses a deeper lesson.
Yes, the status quo is unsustainable. But Romney's proposed solution risks making those problems harder to fix while foreclosing opportunities for the next generation.
History shows clearly that the societies most capable of generosity and liberalism are not those trapped in poverty but those that have escaped it.
Social insurance programs are compatible with a basic safety net. But what we have now is a slow-motion generational fleecing.
The strange new alliance between democratic socialists and nationalist populists isn't a sign of political healing. It's a sign that people have lost their grip on basic economics.
Panicked about holiday shopping? Reason staffers and contributors are here to save the day.
When voters believe they're living through an economic apocalypse, they're willing to embrace the very policies that would create one.
Most countries emerged from a shared language, lineage, or ancient heritage. The United States built a state first and then had to discover what it meant to be a nation.
Real industrial policy has been tried—in many countries, by governments of every ideology. It fails every time for the same reason.
Neither side, however, has a good plan to bring down prices.
Over the last decade, roughly one in every 10 dollars of budget authority has worn an emergency tag.
Democrats defend every entitlement and dream up new benefits. Republicans demand more defense spending and still more tax cuts.
Socialism is government control of the means of production. When the government becomes your largest shareholder, that's a strong first step.
The evidence is clear that we are paying more, U.S. firms have lower margins, and exports are collapsing in flagship industries.
Four ideas that are better than extending Obamacare subsidies and a government shutdown.
This time, Democrats turned the most basic government housekeeping into hostage drama.
Markets thrive on predictable rules, but when the president takes equity stakes or pressures firms at will, investment and risk-taking give way to hesitation.
The expenditures are often costly privileges for special interests that mask the true size of government and fail to deliver the promised bang for the buck.
Some policymakers now say the federal government's stake in Intel should be a "down payment" on a U.S. sovereign wealth fund. The idea is terrible.
The president's clear attempt to interfere in the Federal Reserve is not a one-off crisis.
They are among the worst taxes imaginable—narrow, arbitrary, unstable, and regressive.
A report affirms that greenhouse gases are warming the planet, but it also found no convincing evidence that U.S. hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or droughts have become more frequent or intense in recent decades.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, the CBO, and the Fed are far from perfect. But the U.S. needs a statistical system that is modern, agile, and protected from political interference.
It's time to ask what level of spending Americans truly want with the money we actually have.
The executive branch wants to use the Federal Reserve as a tool to accommodate the government's frenzy of reckless borrowing.
Green energy is promising. But subsidies distort the tax code, misallocate capital, and favor companies already in the game.
In a bill packed with spending, one provision offers real gains for health care choice and savings.
This is what Washington calls compromise: The House proposes $1, the Senate proposes $2, and somehow, the government ends up spending $3.
Other countries have taken meaningful steps to address similar challenges. The U.S. has done nothing.
A Biden-era rule mandates two-person freight crews. But the government admits it lacks evidence that is necessary—and is instead relying on "common sense."
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanks
Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks