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.
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.
Despite the popular narrative, Millennials have dramatically more wealth than Gen Xers had at the same age, and incomes continue to grow with each new generation.
The policy is a true budget buster and is ineffective in the long term.
The president criticized companies for selling "smaller-than-usual products" whose "price stays the same." But it was his and his predecessor's spending policies that caused the underlying issue.
Many who see overdraft protection as preferable to other short-term credit options will have fewer choices as some banks decide the service isn't worth offering anymore.
The reality raises questions about the kind of future we want to leave for the next generation.
His speech in Davos challenged the growing worldwide trend of increased government involvement in economic affairs.
They will either reduce the ability to spend money or to cut taxes.
Rosy fiscal expectations based on eternally low interest rates have proven dangerously wrong.
Rosy fiscal expectations based on eternally low interest rates have proven dangerously wrong.
That's bad news for Americans.
As we step into 2024, it's crucial to adopt a more informed perspective on these dubious claims.
Lawmakers can take small steps that are uncontroversial and bipartisan to jumpstart the fiscal stability process.
In today's innovative economy, there's no excuse for sending a gift card. The staff at Reason is here with some inspiration.
Lawmakers should consider a user-fee system designed to charge drivers by the mile.
We're often told European countries are better off thanks to big-government policies. So why is the U.S. beating France in many important ways?
