If you want less expensive housing, you need more housing. And the way to get more housing is actually pretty simple: You have to let people build it. 

But that seemingly simple solution has turned out to be incredibly difficult, mostly because of politics. More specifically, the problem is zoning.

Local zoning rules put limits on what can be built and where. Zoning rules restrict how high a building can be, or how many units can occupy a given parcel of land. 

In some cases, they also require aesthetic features that can be cumbersome or expensive to build. 

In other words, zoning makes housing more scarce—and more expensive. 

In theory, President Joe Biden has staked out opposition to the worst of these building restrictions. While campaigning for president, he backed loosening zoning rules. 

And the bipartisan infrastructure law Biden signed last year contained billions of dollars for transportation grants the administration indicated could go to localities that reformed strict zoning laws, as part of the administration's Housing Supply Action Plan, which the White House has described as a plan to "ease the burden of housing costs." 

But that plan has produced disappointing results. 

That's the topic of this week's episode of The Reason Rundown With Peter Suderman, featuring Reason Associate Editor Christian Britschgi.

Mentioned in this podcast:

"Joe Biden's Use of Transportation Dollars To Incentivize Zoning Reform Is a Big Flop" by Christian Britschgi

"Environmental Lawsuits Tried To Block 50,000 Homes From Being Built in California in 1 Year" by Christian Britschgi

"Are San Francisco's NIMBYs Finally Getting Their Comeuppance?" by Christian Britschgi

"Marc Andreessen's High-Tech Fix for the Housing Crisis Lets Him Keep Being a NIMBY" by Christian Britschgi

Audio production and editing by Ian Keyser; produced by Hunt Beaty.

The post Christian Britschgi: Zoning Restrictions Worsen the Housing Crisis appeared first on Reason.com.

Just in time for the midterm elections, the Biden administration has announced that millions of college graduates don't have to pay back their student loans. 

This week, President Joe Biden announced a plan to cancel up to $10,000 in student debt for individual borrowers making less than $125,000 a year and two-income households making up to $250,000 a year. Pell Grant recipients would be eligible for up to $20,000 in debt cancellation.

This would completely eliminate student loan debt for millions. Yet, some progressives say it still doesn't go far enough and have pushed Biden to cancel up to $50,000 in debt for most borrowers. 

Even with an income cap, the vast majority of the benefits of Biden's loan cancellation program will accrue to borrowers in the top 60 percent of the income distribution. 

There are other problems too: The one-time plan would increase federal debt by at least $300 billion, and possibly more like $500 billion, effectively wiping out all the expected deficit reduction from the Inflation Reduction Act that Biden signed this month. 

Additionally, Biden does not have the legal authority to cancel student debt without congressional authorization. But don't take my word for it: That's what Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said last summer. In her exact words: "The president can't do it—so that's not even a discussion."

Yet, President Biden is doing it. 

That's the topic of this week's episode of The Reason Rundown With Peter Suderman, featuring Reason Assistant Editor Emma Camp.

Mentioned in this podcast:

"Biden's New Student Loan Forgiveness Plan Helps Mostly People Who Don't Need It," by Emma Camp

"The Biden Administration's Proposed Policy To Reduce Student Debt Is Only Going To Make the Problem Worse," by Emma Camp

"The Federal Student Loan Program Was Supposed To Pay for Itself. Now, It'll Cost Taxpayers $197 Billion," by Emma Camp

"COVID-19 Gutted College Attendance. Now, a Solid Labor Market Is Convincing More High School Grads To Skip It.," by Emma Camp

Audio production and editing by Ian Keyser; produced by Hunt Beaty.

The post Emma Camp: Student Loan Forgiveness Is Bad News and Bad Policy appeared first on Reason.com.

To bitcoin enthusiasts, the advantages of cryptocurrency are obvious: It's a global, decentralized financial network that no government or centralized entity can control. 

But bitcoin is also incredibly transparent. That's by design. The system relies on a public ledger—an accounting of every single transaction that is visible and trackable to all, including government authorities who want to monitor and control the use of cryptocurrency. 

Currently, U.S. law requires cryptocurrency exchanges—essentially marketplaces for buying, selling, and trading various forms of cryptocurrency—to collect personal information about the traders who use their networks. 

Those exchanges are also vulnerable to pressure from governments who might want to freeze transactions or shut down accounts. 

Not surprisingly, this has inspired workarounds to help crypto users maintain financial privacy. Software programs known as "mixers" scramble the ledger, blending unrelated transactions in order to help make cryptocurrency use more difficult to track. 

One of those mixers is a program known as Tornado Cash. 

Earlier this month, the U.S. Treasury Department announced that it was adding Tornado Cash to the U.S. sanctions list, thus prohibiting all transactions using the software. The Treasury Department claims Tornado Cash is the equivalent of a high-tech weapon that could be used by terrorists or foreign rivals. But others say it's just code, a software tool no different than any other.

That's the topic of this week's episode of The Reason Rundown With Peter Suderman, featuring Reason Senior Producer Zach Weissmueller.

Mentioned in this podcast:

"The Canadian Government Couldn't Stop Bitcoin," by Zach Weissmueller

"Bitcoin Can Become Untraceable.," by Zach Weissmueller and Danielle Thompson

"The Tornado Cash Crackdown is an Attack on Free Speech and Privacy," by Zach Weissmueller and Danielle Thompson.

Audio production and editing by Ian Keyser; produced by Hunt Beaty.

The post Zach Weissmueller: Why Cryptocurrency Privacy Software Restrictions Violate Free Speech Rights appeared first on Reason.com.

The climate, health care, and tax bill known as the Inflation Reduction Act that was recently passed in the Senate allocates $80 billion to expand the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with the aim of bringing in hundreds of billions of dollars in additional tax revenue. 

A little more than half of the $80 billion is dedicated to increased tax enforcement, and some estimates suggest it will be used to hire nearly 87,000 IRS agents over the next decade, although not all of those hires will represent new, additional staff positions. 

Democrats say the goal is to raise an additional $200 billion in revenue through more aggressive tax enforcement, which they claim will be focused on the wealthy. Further, they say that new enforcement measures won't affect taxpayers who make less than $400,00 a year—even though Democrats explicitly voted down an amendment that would have enshrined that policy into law. 

So, is this really just a plan to spend more money catching rich tax evaders? Or will the agency's new enforcement budget and expanded headcount inevitably lead to more audits of low- and middle-income taxpayers?

That's the topic of this week's episode of The Reason Rundown With Peter Suderman, featuring Reason Editor at Large Matt Welch.

Mentioned in this podcast:

"IRS Controversially Claims Hiring 87,000 New Agents Won't Mean Higher Audit Rate for the Middle Class," by Liz Wolfe

"Dems Want To Soak the Rich by Snooping on the Poor," by Matt Welch

"Biden's Total Financial Surveillance," by Matt Welch

"Biden Won't Close the 'Tax Gap,' but He Will Snoop on Your Bank Records," by Matt Welch

Audio production and editing by Ian Keyser; produced by Hunt Beaty

The post Matt Welch: Dems Want To Spend Your Money To Take More of Your Money appeared first on Reason.com.

In July, President Joe Biden delivered a speech at a decommissioned coal-fired power plant in Somerset, Massachusetts, following record-breaking heat waves in both the United States and Europe. In his remarks, he said that "climate change is an emergency" and "a clear and present danger to the United States."

This wasn't the official declaration of a national emergency that progressive climate activists had hoped for. But it was a form of lip service to their demands.

Now, less than a month later, a legislative deal between Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) would put $370 billion in new federal spending toward tackling climate change.

That deal, dubbed the Inflation Reduction Act, is a successor to the Build Back Better spending plan that Democrats fought over and failed to pass for the last year. The $370 billion figure is less than progressive activists originally wanted, but it nonetheless represents both the single biggest component of the Inflation Reduction Act and massive increase in the size and scope federal climate spending. 

The bill has yet to pass, but Democrats are already arguing that it could be a pivotal moment for climate and energy policy, as well as for the political fortune of Biden's flagging presidency. 

That's the topic of this week's episode of The Reason Rundown With Peter Suderman, featuring Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey.

Mentioned in this podcast:

"Are the Inflation Reduction Act's Climate Goals Plausible?" by Ronald Bailey

"President Biden Asserts 'Climate Change Is an Emergency'," by Ronald Bailey

"More Heat Waves But Falling Heat Mortality in U.S.," by Ronald Bailey

Audio production and editing by Luke Allen; produced by Hunt Beaty

The post Ron Bailey: Will $370 Billion in Green Energy Subsidies Make Any Difference? appeared first on Reason.com.

In August 2021, President Joe Biden committed the United States to withdrawing combat troops from Afghanistan. After two decades of fighting, U.S. involvement in the war would finally be over. 

A year after the chaotic and violent withdrawal, America's exit from Afghanistan has produced new challenges. Among the biggest is the resettlement of roughly 100,000 Afghan refugees uprooted by the war.

You might assume that there would be a political consensus that the United States had an obligation to help rebuild the lives of its allies. 

But many Republicans, including former President Donald Trump, opposed large-scale resettlement operations. One Republican member of Congress warned that Biden's pullback from Afghanistan could become "an excuse to flood" the U.S. with refugees. 

There was, however, a clear exception to the GOP's opposition: the state of Utah. The state has a Republican governor and a Republican attorney general, and there is a Republican majority in the state Legislature. By one measure, it's the second-most Republican state in the country. Yet, in the aftermath of the Afghanistan troop withdrawal, state and local officials were united in welcoming refugees.

That's the topic of this week's episode of The Reason Rundown With Peter Suderman, featuring Reason Assistant Editor Fiona Harrigan.

Mentioned in this podcast:

"Utah Wants To Help Afghan Refugees Prosper. Will the Federal Government Get in the Way?" by Fiona Harrigan

"U.S. Resumes Refugee Admissions After Temporary Pause," by Fiona Harrigan

"Afghan Interpreters Risked Everything To Help American Soldiers. Now They Might Be Left Behind," by Fiona Harrigan

"The Most American Religion," by McKay Coppins

Audio production and editing by Ian Keyser; produced by Hunt Beaty

The post Fiona Harrigan: Why Utah Republicans Bucked Trump and Biden on Afghan Refugees appeared first on Reason.com.

You've probably heard of Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Republican congressional representative from Georgia's 14th district. Greene has openly dabbled in conspiracy theories, and she's often been cast as a leading example of the GOP's far-right fringe. So it's no surprise that she's inspired some challengers—and not only from the Democratic Party. 

This year, Angela Pence, a Georgia mother of eight and a local business owner, announced that she would be challenging Greene for her House seat—and she'd be doing so as a member of the Libertarian Party. Pence would face an uphill battle against Greene under any circumstance since the state's 14th congressional district is one of the most solidly Republican in the country. 

But there was a bigger, even more immediate problem: To truly challenge Greene, Pence had to get on the ballot. And Georgia has what are arguably the strictest ballot access rules of any state in the country, making any third-party candidacy a near-impossible feat.

That's the topic of this week's episode of The Reason Rundown With Peter Suderman, featuring reporter Eric Boehm.

Mentioned in this podcast:

"How Georgia's Outlandish Ballot Access Law Is Protecting Marjorie Taylor Greene (and the Two-Party System)," by Eric Boehm

"On the Pride Parade Route With the Libertarian Hoping To Challenge Marjorie Taylor Greene," by Eric Boehm

"American Steelmakers Are Still Defending Trump's Tariffs That Crushed Consumers," by Eric Boehm

Audio production and editing by Ian Keyser; produced by Hunt Beaty

The post Eric Boehm: Georgia Ballot Access Is Insane appeared first on Reason.com.

Last week, former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was assassinated by a lone gunman while giving a political speech. The precise motivation for this horrific killing remains murky, with some reports suggesting the killer was mad about Abe's connections to the Unification Church.

But the method has sparked some discussion about violent crime and its causes. That's because Abe was shot with a gun in Japan, a country with some of the strictest gun laws in the developed world.

Some analysts have suggested that Abe's killing, however awful, nevertheless highlights the success of Japanese gun controls, since it serves as a reminder of how rare gun crime is in the country.

But my guest today sees this another way: Even in an island nation where private gun ownership is essentially outlawed, a determined killer can still find a way to obtain, or make, a firearm. This, in turn, has implications for current debates about American gun policy.

That's the topic of this week's episode of The Reason Rundown With Peter Suderman featuring Reason Senior Editor Jacob Sullum.

"Japan's Gun Restrictions Are Far From Sufficient To Explain Its Low Crime Rate," by Jacob Sullum

"Why Didn't a 'Red Flag' Law Prevent the Illinois Mass Shooting, and Would New Federal Rules Have Mattered?" by Jacob Sullum

"After Uvalde, Politicians Push Irrelevant Gun Control Proposals," by Jacob Sullum

Engineered and edited by Ian Keyser. Produced by Hunt Beaty.

The post Jacob Sullum: Why Japanese Gun Control Isn't a Model for America appeared first on Reason.com.

Once upon a time, the Golden State was the land of golden opportunity. In postwar America, California was sunny and sprawling, with a booming economy, plentiful employment opportunities, and comfortable middle-class neighborhoods. It was a great place to work, own a home, and raise a family. California was the American dream.

Over time, something changed. California was never exactly a cheap place to live. But more and more, it became prohibitively expensive—especially in and around San Francisco, the epicenter of the tech industry.

Some Californians, however, are voting with their feet. California lost residents in both 2020 and 2021. And many are leaving for places like Austin, Texas, and Miami, Florida, both of which have cultivated reputations as up-and-coming tech hubs, with cheaper housing and better governance. But have these cities really improved on San Francisco's model? Or are they doomed to repeat its mistakes?

That's the topic on this week's episode of The Reason Rundown featuring Reason Associate Editor Liz Wolfe.

Show links:

"California's Competitors," by Liz Wolfe

"Abolish Zoning—All of It," by Nolan Gray

"What the Chesa Boudin Recall Means for America," by Nick Gillespie and Regan Taylor

Audio production and editing by Ian Keyser; produced by Hunt Beaty

The post Liz Wolfe: How San Francisco's Failures Could Help Austin and Miami appeared first on Reason.com.

Last week, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and with it the nationwide guarantee of a constitutional right to abortion. It was a major moment in constitutional history. But for millions of American women, the decision will also have significant personal ramifications.

In this inaugural episode, host Peter Suderman speaks with Reason Senior Editor Elizabeth Nolan Brown about the future of abortion after Roe—the legal mess, the impact on women, and what sort of responses we're likely to see.

Show links:

"Here's What Abortion Laws in a Post-Roe World Might Look Like," by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

"Can the FDA Stop States From Banning Abortion Pills?" by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

"The Moderate Majority on Abortion," by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

Audio production and editing by Ian Keyser; produced by Hunt Beaty

The post Elizabeth Nolan Brown: Abortion Prohibition, Mail-Order Pills, and Post-Roe Politics appeared first on Reason.com.