Trump's Chaos Cabinet
Plus: a listener asks the editors about fluoride in the water supply.
Plus: a listener asks the editors about fluoride in the water supply.
The nominee for attorney general passes the Trump loyalty test, but he lacks relevant experience and has repeatedly demonstrated poor judgment.
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.
Narrowly understood, the president-elect's familiar-sounding plan to tackle "massive waste and fraud" may not give us "smaller government" in any meaningful sense.
The president-elect’s record and campaign positions belie Elon Musk’s talk of spending cuts.
The former president says the government should be funded like it was in 1890. So where's the plan to reset spending to 1890s levels?
The former president's increasingly lopsided economic policy proposals have the feel of throwing spaghetti at the wall.
The candidate’s protectionism offsets some otherwise positive tax ideas.
The budget could be balanced by cutting just six pennies from every dollar the government spends. It used to require even less.
Lower taxes are better taxes, but they should be part of well-considered plans.
Plus: The Federal Reserve cut interest rates, Congress still isn't cutting spending, and more....
Neither Harris nor Trump has a plan to address national debt, but they dramatically differ on taxation.
Both party leaders are selling the idea of a sovereign wealth fund, but it’s more political fantasy than fiscal fix.
The costs of steep tariffs and a higher corporate income tax extend far beyond the advertised targets.
As with Trump and his tariffs, Harris appears unwilling to acknowledge the obvious consequences of hiking taxes on businesses.
Both campaigns represent variations on a theme of big, fiscally irresponsible, hyper-interventionist government.
Exempting tips from the federal income tax would add to the deficit and unfairly penalize nontipped workers. It's a bad idea no matter who is pitching it.
A key indicator has predicted every recession since 1970, and the alarm just sounded.
Researchers found that giving people $1,000 every month for three years resulted in decreased productivity and earnings, and more leisure time.
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.
Wealth taxes discourage investment, shrink wages, and don’t generate much revenue.
The Biden administration's $60 billion expansion of the IRS has netted $1 billion in new revenue so far.
Although former President Donald Trump's deregulatory agenda would make some positive changes, it's simply not enough.
Which party can do the least to fix America's troubled old-age welfare system?
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.
Plus: A listener asks if there are any libertarian solutions to rising obesity rates.
We could grow our way out of our debt burden if politicians would limit spending increases to just below America's average yearly economic growth. But they won't even do that.
The president has tried to shift blame for inflation, interest rate hikes, and an overall decimation of consumers' purchasing power.
Reducing revenue without identifying offsetting spending cuts means Trump is merely promising to borrow more heavily.
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.
The average American will lose between $5,000 and $14,000 annually by 2054 due to the burden of the growing national debt.
Why aren't politicians on both sides more worried than they seem to be?
Price controls lead to the misallocation of resources, shortages, diminished product quality, and black markets.
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.
Governments around the world have been on a borrowing spree, and prosperity has suffered.
Neither presidential candidate is willing to back the reforms necessary to close the gap between revenue and benefits.
Plus: A listener asks about the absurdity of Social Security entitlements.
Johnson could lose the speakership for the same reasons Kevin McCarthy lost it just five months ago. Who will be next?
An obvious, tepid reform was greeted with shrill partisan screeching.
The president wants to raise the rate from 21 percent to 28 percent, despite it being well-established that this is the most economically-destructive method to raise government funds.
The government needs to cut back on spending—and on the promises to special interests that fuel the spending.
The credits cost the state over $1.3 billion per year with a 19 percent return on investment. Lawmakers' proposals will do little to change that.
And why the Congressional Budget Office does a poor job of making those estimates.
The reality raises questions about the kind of future we want to leave for the next generation.
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