Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

Washington Post: 'big government is mostly unchanged'

Matt Welch | 8.26.2013 10:08 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
The new normal. ||| Mercatus Center
Mercatus Center

Your periodic reminder that the unbearable largeness of government is ongoing and eternal, despite a half-dozen recent showdowns over federal spending, comes from Sunday's Washington Post. Excerpt:

After 2 1/2 years of budget battles, this is what the federal government looks like now:

It is on pace, this year, to spend $3.455 trillion.

That figure is down from 2010 — the year that worries about government spending helped bring on a tea party uprising, a Republican takeover in the House and then a series of ulcer-causing showdowns in Congress.

But it is not down by that much. Back then, the government spent a whopping $3.457 trillion.

Measured another way — not in dollars, but in people — the government has about 4.1 million employees today, military and civilian. That's more than the populations of 24 states.

Back in 2010, it had 4.3 million employees. More than the populations of 24 states.

These numbers underline a point not made often enough: The stimulus was supposed to be a surge, a temporary increase to be pulled back after the crisis was averted. Instead, predictably, it just created a new baseline level of government spending.

Whole thing here. Link via the Twitter feed of the Post's Dan Froomkin, who comments: "I'm still appalled by this poorly argued anti-government diatribe masquerading as a front-page WaPo story on Sunday."

Serious about balancing the budget without raising taxes? Then read this Reason classic from Nick Gillespie and Veronique de Rugy: "The 19 Percent Solution."

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Colin Powell Not Sure Trayvon Martin Case Will Have "Staying Power"

Matt Welch is an editor at large at Reason.

PoliticsPolicyEconomicsGovernment SpendingStimulusBudget
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (92)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. some guy   12 years ago

    Something... something.. NEW NORMAL... something.

  2. Francisco d Anconia   12 years ago

    3, 2, 1...cue Shreeek!

    1. Hyperion   12 years ago

      We should queue him instead, in the Queue of Trolls who were no more.

    2. Palin's Buttplug   12 years ago

      The fact that government growth has stalled at $3.5 trillion is not trivial.

      The Jekyll and Hyde GOP only turns fiscally conservative when a (D) is in the White House. Let us praise gridlock.

      1. Almanian!   12 years ago

        The fact that government growth has stalled at $3.5 trillion is not trivial.

        Yeah it is.

        If it were sustainable - that's not trivial. But it's not - the entire system is broken on "Ratchet UP!"

        So a one- or two-year hitch in the giddyup of Our Federal Overlords is....nothing.

        1. Palin's Buttplug   12 years ago

          Four years - the entire Obama first term.

          The CBO pegged FY -08/09 spending at $3.5 trillion before Obama was sworn in.

          1. Almanian!   12 years ago

            It's still at the more-elevated-than-before level of 2008, which took a bigger jump than prior years.

            So - no. It's trivial.

          2. Aresen   12 years ago

            The stimulus was supposed to happen, then go away.

            For some reason, it didn't go away.

            And the real costs of Obamacare are scheduled to kick in well after BHO has left office, so Team Blue will be able to pretend that it wasn't St Barry of the Unicorn that caused the deficit to zoom when that happens.

            1. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

              this is a point the Bluetards ignore all the time. The one-time stimulus became a structural part of spending, and that's a problem.

              1. Palin's Buttplug   12 years ago

                OK, that fixed amount ($841 billion) is being spread over multiple years.

                Its not like a recurring stimulus though.

            2. Palin's Buttplug   12 years ago

              What evidence do you have that the stimulus is still around? The stimulus was a fixed dollar amount consisting of about $270 billion in tax cuts and 2x that amount in spending.

              1. Aresen   12 years ago

                ?

                Spending went up by the "stimulus" amount in the last Bush budget.

                Spending has not gone down - your initial claim was that spending had not increased in the Obama budgets. One can only say that the spending has not increased if you maintain that the stimulus was not temporary at all.

                1. Palin's Buttplug   12 years ago

                  Jan 8, 2009 CBO report

                  Outlays.
                  Without changes in current laws and policies,
                  CBO estimates, outlays will rise from $3.0 trillion in
                  2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2009 (see Table 5). Mandatory
                  spending is projected to grow by almost $570 billion, or
                  by 36 percent; nearly three-quarters of that growth results
                  from the activities of the TARP and CBO's treatment of
                  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as federal entities. Discre-
                  tionary spending is projected to grow by $52 billion, or
                  by 4.6 percent. In contrast, net interest is anticipated to
                  decline by 22 percent as a result of lower interest rates
                  and lower inflation. In total, outlays will be equal to
                  24.9 percent of GDP, a level exceeded only during the
                  later years of World War I

                  http://www.cbo.gov/sites/defau.....timony.pdf

                  This was clearly pre-stimulus. The stimulus was supplemental (off budget) like the Iraq War was treated 2002-09.

                  1. R C Dean   12 years ago

                    This is why one should look at actual gross federal spending, to avoid the "budget/off-budget games".

                    Actual outlays in 2008 - $2.9T with a deficit of 3.2% of GDP.

                    Actual outlays in 2009 - $3.5T with a deficit of 10.1% of GDP.

                    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org.....?Docid=200

                    We argue endlessly over who "owns" the 2009 fiscal year. Given CBO's projection in January of $3.5T in spending, and the subsequent passage of a stimulus bill worth hundreds of billions of dollars, I'm wondering just what CBO was looking at, because $3.5T plus hundreds of billions is, err, more than 3.5T.

                    Now, if you look at the actual 2009 budget signed by Bush, it is more like $2.9T.

                    Regardless of exactly what chair Barack was warming at any given time, there is no doubt that he supported every penny of the expansion in spending from 2008 on, and added hundreds of billions to it after he became President.

                    I'm constantly amused by those who Blame Bush for things that Barack has done more and harder.

                    1. CE   12 years ago

                      FY2009 was the last Bush budget, and he deserves the blame. Obama deserves the blame for continuing to spend at that ruinous level, rather than paring back the budget to something somewhat more sane.

          3. Hopfiend   12 years ago

            You are stuck in a left/right zero sum discussion. It's the response to an argument very few (almost none) here are making. But, by all means keep going.

      2. Drizzle   12 years ago

        Gridlock keeps them from doing stupider shit than they already are, so yes, praise gridlock.

  3. Fist of Etiquette   12 years ago

    Instead, predictably, it just created a new baseline level of government spending.

    But now, luckily, the sequestersharknado is the new baseline. We're saved.

    1. CE   12 years ago

      Unless you live in the West, which is burning to the ground due to climate change, there are no firefighters or water tanker planes due to sequester, and we can't leave since all the air traffic controllers were furloughed!

  4. Free Society   12 years ago

    These numbers underline a point not made often enough: The stimulus was supposed to be a surge, a temporary increase to be pulled back after the crisis was averted.

    That was never the intent. Everything the federal government does is just a foot in the door for more power and more spending.

  5. Jordan   12 years ago

    Link via the Twitter feed of the Post's Dan Froomkin

    Does anybody else imagine a Froomkin being a special kind of merkin? Perhaps the pubic equivalent of a mullet?

    1. Almanian!   12 years ago

      Froomkin IS an awesome last name.

      And, yes, it does sound like a very, very special kind of merkin.

    2. Acosmist   12 years ago

      Well now I do, thanks for that image.

    3. SugarFree   12 years ago

      Short in the front, long the back... Like a nice trim up front, but then really long asshole hair?

      1. Almanian!   12 years ago

        This is exactly what I was thinking.

        It frightens me that you came to the same conclusion.

        I must engage in....self reflection, for some time...

        1. SugarFree   12 years ago

          Contemplate this on the Tree of Braided Ass Hair.

  6. wareagle   12 years ago

    The stimulus was supposed to be a surge, a temporary increase to be pulled back after the crisis was averted.

    according to whom, Matt? And why would you believe this? Nothing in govt's history provides any evidence for thinking a spike in govt spending is temporary.

    1. Mainer2   12 years ago

      The W.C. Fields school of politics

    2. Aresen   12 years ago

      The stimulus was sold as being temporary.

      Libertarians, by and large, had seen that wreck on the lot before and weren't buying.

  7. Almanian!   12 years ago

    Aren't we supposed to be surprised at this? Like the downward adjustments in prior quarters growth, or higher "than expected" current unemployment rates?

    "This was unexpected..."

  8. Mainer2   12 years ago

    Slight decline in spending ? So AUSTERITY then.

    1. Almanian!   12 years ago

      A decline in actual spending is more like ERMAHGERD SERKWERSTERPOCOLOMAGEDDONADONACHT !1!1!1

    2. CE   12 years ago

      Yes, clearly the recovery would be stronger if Obama had kept the budget axe in the tool shed. A Nobel-prize winning economist said so, in the newspaper of record.

  9. The Late P Brooks   12 years ago

    Instead, predictably, it just created a new baseline level of government spending.

    Huh. Never saw that coming.

  10. bmp1701   12 years ago

    Well, if the rate of increase has temporarily slowed down, that's something to be glad about. Normally, in government logic a population/inflation adjustment isn't even considered an "increase", so this is pretty much austereageddon.

  11. The Late P Brooks   12 years ago

    "I'm still appalled by this poorly argued anti-government diatribe masquerading as a front-page WaPo story on Sunday."

    LOLSRSLYOMFGWTF

    1. Doctor Whom   12 years ago

      Shorter Froomkin: "Heresy!"

  12. Doctor Whom   12 years ago

    I prefer for government spending to be shown in inflation-corrected dollars per capita. Even by that metric, however, federal spending has quadrupled in my lifetime, and overall government spending has more than tripled.

    1. Tony   12 years ago

      Yeah that chart is kind of crap.

    2. Doctor Whom   12 years ago

      federal spending has quadrupled in my lifetime

      I misread the chart, but it has still more than tripled.

    3. plusafdotcom   12 years ago

      that AND on semilog scales, where a straight line represents a constant percentage increase...

      Even with the crappy little graph, you can extrapolate the "Pre-surge" line up through today and see that we're right on track for the next increase, and exactly where we would have been without the "surge," other than not having wasted as much money in the interim years.

      ah, but as Barbie says, "Math is Hard!"

  13. Hyperion   12 years ago

    Our government will self destruct. It's just a matter of time. They believe that they must be involved in everything and control everything. They keep biting off more. Now you have folks 3D printing things that they don't like. You have people infiltrating their dark secrets and exposing things that they don't like. Every time they ban a substance, someone invents a new one. What's next? There should be a trillion nexts. Someone should genetically modify pot plants so that they can look like anything, a petunia, whatever. They won't be able to resist going after every hook that we cast. Just cast so many of those hooks that they overwhelm themselves and implode. It's sort of like death of a thousand cuts. You know they can't let go of one single thing.

  14. The Late P Brooks   12 years ago

    government growth has stalled at $3.5 trillion

    Don't fret, li'l buddy. It's just resting.

    1. Invisible Finger   12 years ago

      FedGov will be stupid enough to intervene in Syria and probably Egypt so we can expect another sharp increase in spending.

  15. Thane runs off sobbing   12 years ago

    BEZOS HAS ALREADY TURNED THE POST INTO A PROPAGANDA MACHINE!

    1. Hyperion   12 years ago

      Maybe he really is just a puppet of the Kochtopus.

  16. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

    "No, fuck you, cut spending."

    1. Almanian!   12 years ago

      thank you for the reminder

      1. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

        Focus, people, focus!

  17. creech   12 years ago

    Even a $million cut in a $5 million planned increase is spun as "spending slashed - our children in peril." How does one use the truth to overcome such mendacity?

    I had a lefty tell me at a picnic this weekend that "right wing economic predications of runaway inflation have been disproved. In fact, we should carpet-bomb the U.S. with hundred dollar bills and solve the unemployment problem in one fell swoop." He didn't buy my
    explanation that such a highly visible display of printing money would immediately cause prices to rise, while a largely hidden and not understood printing of money by the Fed can spool out for a long time before price increases come roaring in.

    1. Doctor Whom   12 years ago

      In fact, we should carpet-bomb the U.S. with hundred dollar bills and solve the unemployment problem in one fell swoop.

      Erma H. ferckin' Gerd, even when I was a little kid, I knew what the result would be.

    2. Hyperion   12 years ago

      right wing economic predications of runaway inflation have been disproved

      There is no runaway inflation, yet.

      I've had proggies tell me flat out that inflation does not even exist in the US, it's just a scare mongering tactic of the GOP. How then, can a gallon of milk that costs 19 cents when I was a kid, be $4 now? When it takes 20x the amount of dollar to buy something than it used to, isn't that dollar inflated?

      Food prices and the costs of just about everything, food for instance, are rising a lot faster than wages are now. Serious inflation is just a matter of time. Our federal government absolutely will not stop expanding and spending and taxing and printing, so it's inevitable that inflation will get out of control in the near future.

      Bureaucrats, lobbyists, and elected officials need money to pay their mortgages on those 2 million dollar DC homes that would sell for 200k anywhere else in the country. And the rest of us need to suffer because of that, it's for the children.

      1. Nephilium   12 years ago

        I think an easier way to point out inflation is to point back 20 years ago, when if you had a $50 or $100 bill, you needed to be concerned that you would be able to find somewhere to break it. Now you can go buy a pop at the gas station, and they'll break that $50 or $100 for you.

    3. Tony   12 years ago

      It is not prudent to solve a problem that is unlikely to happen and for which conditions don't exist to cause it (i.e., it is imaginary) before we solve the basic, obvious problem that economic policy is supposed to be about in the first place: the high level of unemployment.

      1. Contrarian P   12 years ago

        Yes, your interventions have done such a wonderful job of solving that problem. What level of evidence would lead you to conclude that government economic policy does not lead to employment?

      2. PM   12 years ago

        Of course, since staglfation busted the Philips curve and proved that there isn't a linear relationship between inflation and unemployment, that statement is a complete and total non-sequitur. But actually, it's better if government sticks by your plan and only makes one problem worse at a time, if possible.

  18. Drake   12 years ago

    As always, I shall complain about the labeling. The President does not control spending (other than veto power). The Speaker of the House and Senate Majority lead should have their names on these periods.

    1. CE   12 years ago

      Except that the White House publishes the budget every year, and the Congress more or less falls in line with those plans. Despite the way the Constitution was written.

  19. The Late P Brooks   12 years ago

    "No, fuck you, cut spending."

    NEVAAARRRRR!

    *skips merrily away, tossing handfulls of hundred dollar bills drawn from a canvas sack marked "SWAG" into the air*

  20. The Late P Brooks   12 years ago

    The W.C. Fields school of politics

    I'd say more like P T Barnum.

  21. Tony   12 years ago

    Measured another way ? not in dollars, but in people ? the government has about 4.1 million employees today, military and civilian.

    If only "measuring by people" were applied to the other end of the conversation. The Bush economic meltdown led to a lot of people losing their incomes. That means more participation in safety net programs. (Bizarrely many antigovernment types think this increased spending has been newly appropriated by Congress, or something.)

    Of course you guys can't even articulate why it's not only good to cut spending now but the most important thing ever. Just an article of faith. One whose maintenance is more important than considering the livelihoods of human beings. Because just in case you weren't aware, your allies on Capitol Hill who want to cut spending at all costs generally mean spending that goes to the poor and vulnerable.

    1. Scruffy Nerfherder   12 years ago

      Of course you guys can't even articulate why it's not only good to cut spending now but the most important thing ever.

      Christ you're a moron.

      Reasons to cut federal spending:

      - Crowds out private investment
      - Those dollars must be paid back thru taxes, inflation, or both
      - Seriously misallocates capital and causes long term damage to the economy

      I'm certain others can contribute to this list, but most importantly, fuck you, cut spending.

      1. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

        You're the one responding to it, so who's really the moron?

      2. Jordan   12 years ago

        Man, Tony really showed that strawman who's boss.

      3. Tony   12 years ago

        fuck you, cut spending.

        As good a distillation of the argument as any. No actual economic argument, just a list of articles of faith that can apply at any time under any circumstances and which you will never change.

        1. EdWuncler   12 years ago

          Those poor people who you always seem to defend will bare the brunt of the upcoming implosion of government debt and insolvency. You cold give two shits about the poor because they are nothing more then prawns in your game of having government control every facet of life. Fuck off slaver.

          1. Jordan   12 years ago

            Not to mention the fact that Federal Reserve policy explicitly funnels wealth from the poorest to the wealthiest.

            1. EdWuncler   12 years ago

              Exactly.

          2. Tony   12 years ago

            the upcoming implosion of government debt and insolvency.

            You mean the one Republicans are going to cause by forcing a debt limit crisis? Or the imaginary and cynical scare story with no credible economic argument behind it I referred to?

            1. Scruffy Nerfherder   12 years ago

              The one that happens when the Federal Reserve has a bond sale and nobody shows up.

    2. EdWuncler   12 years ago

      I've been lurking in Reason's comments for a long time and these guys have articulated very well why spending must be decreased. It's you who refuse to acknowledge that spending decreases needs to happen despite the overwhelming evidence. Do you actually think anything good can come out of a system that spends more then it takes in, have a tax system that is nearly 60,000 pages long or a regulatory structure that is a showcase of crony capitalism and a burden on businesses that don't have the ear of the government. Like come on, I know you have an ideology to defend but sooner or later reality is going crash down on you.

      1. Tony   12 years ago

        The only argument for why spending has to be slashed right now despite the harm it will cause to employment numbers, vulnerable people, and economic growth is a fear of hyperinflation--which is not a credible fear and quite obviously a lame excuse for pushing an antigovernment ideological agenda. It really shouldn't be any secret by now that everyone wanting to slash spending on government programs don't like those programs to begin with and have been saying the exact same thing for decades, no matter the economic circumstances.

        What bothers me is not that people oppose programs but that they invent imaginary crises, pretending that we have no other choice but to enact their ideological agenda. A little honesty would go a long way toward winning over my respect, if not my agreement--though I suspect the lying goes on because the agenda is just not at all popular.

        1. EdWuncler   12 years ago

          So we should have the government spend more money in the form of a stimulus and then unemployment will be much lower and everything will be okay. When that happens, the politicians will then cut spending because they hate to spend what we don't have and would never ever use taxpayer's money to give to their friends or bribe voters to vote for them.

          1. Tony   12 years ago

            If you don't want fiscal imprudence then be sure not to vote for Republicans. Every passing day since the 2008 crisis is evidence in favor of the argument that the way to solve both unemployment and the budget deficit is to find a way to stimulate broad economic demand. Cutting government spending is to do the opposite of that.

            1. The Last American Hero   12 years ago

              Labor participation rates are at historic highs and U6 has barely moved given that the recession ended more than 4 years ago.

              1. The Last American Hero   12 years ago

                Historic lows.

            2. Drake   12 years ago

              Like low taxes and less regulation?

            3. Auric Demonocles   12 years ago

              So when the government spends more money, and unemployment and the deficit both increase, this is evidence that that cutting government spending would lead to increased unemployment and deficits?

            4. Arkansaustrian Economics   12 years ago

              I don't vote for Republicans. Or Democrats.

              It's sad that you can only understand simple concepts when the right label is attached.

              1. PM   12 years ago

                It's sad that you can only understand simple concepts when the right label is attached.

                Even then he doesn't understand the concept, he just knows who he's supposed to root for.

    3. CE   12 years ago

      I can articulate why it's important to cut government spending now (and always): because much of what government does is economic harm. They take money away from the productive and give it to the causes favored by the politically connected. Less spending by government means less politically directed spending and more spending (or saving) through the freely chose interactions of economic actors.

  22. Hyperion   12 years ago

    I smell troll stench.

  23. The Late P Brooks   12 years ago

    Of course you guys can't even articulate why it's not only good to cut spending now but the most important thing ever.

    Yup. That must be it.

  24. The Late P Brooks   12 years ago

    Because just in case you weren't aware, your allies on Capitol Hill who want to cut spending at all costs generally mean spending that goes to the poor and vulnerable.

    Those poor, vulnerable government contractors.

    1. EdWuncler   12 years ago

      I always ask Progressives just exactly how much money do the government need to lower the poverty rate. To this day, never got a straight answer.

      1. Drake   12 years ago

        All of it?

  25. The Late P Brooks   12 years ago

    What bothers me is not that people oppose programs but that they invent imaginary crises, pretending that we have no other choice but to enact their ideological agenda.

    Whatever you do, DON'T LOOK IN THE MIRROR.

  26. Not a Libertarian   12 years ago

    What I found surprising about the chart in the relatively stable government spending during the NIxon administration.

    I would have been certain that spending substantially rose under Nixon.

    Is the relatively big jump under Ford in 1975 as the result of Democratic congressional gains in 1974 or was the Ford White House ramping up the budget themselves?

    1. Drake   12 years ago

      Nixon took over at the height of the Vietnam War and gradually wound it down over his first term. Nixon and the Democrats also saved a lot of cash by reneging on all the promises made to South Vietnam.

  27. LPDave   12 years ago

    One pet peeve I've had for a while is failing to distinguish between those who /determine/ policy (whom I call the government) and those who /implement/ policy (whom I call the bureaucracy).

    The federal government itself is very small, by my count only 1254 people: the 535 voting members of Congress, POTUS/VPOTUS and the 683-717 Executive branch members on the Executive Schedule. (This ignores the federal courts, but it's arguable whether they actually determine policy; even if they do, there are only 874 Article III judges authorized by law, including the Supreme Court.)

    That's it. 2128 people at the very most. Those millions of other people are part of the bureaucracy, and that's what really needs to be curtailed.

    1. CE   12 years ago

      What about public sector heroes like teachers, firefighters and the police? I thought the sequester was going to hurt them too.

      1. PM   12 years ago

        If Obama's dog doesn't have a private Osprey on which to fly to Martha's Vineyard, every child in America will be stricken with polio, probably die for lack of CDC-funded vaccinations, and those who survive will either end up illiterate for lack of teachers, or burned to death due to lack of firefighters.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Belated Republican Objections to the One Big Beautiful Bill Glide Over Its Blatant Fiscal Irresponsibility

Jacob Sullum | 6.4.2025 2:50 PM

A Car Hit and Killed Their 7-Year-Old Son. Now They're Being Charged for Letting Him Walk to the Store.

Lenore Skenazy | 6.4.2025 1:30 PM

Everything Got Worse During COVID

Christian Britschgi | 6.4.2025 1:15 PM

Mountainhead Is a Shallow Satire of Tech Billionaires

Peter Suderman | 6.4.2025 1:05 PM

New Ruling Moves Oregon Closer to Legal In-Home Psilocybin Use

Autumn Billings | 6.4.2025 11:40 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!