Yesterday, the rule of Egypt's dictator of 30 years, Hosni Mubarak, finally came to end in the midst of massive popular uprising. One of the strongest dictators in the region, the fall of Mubarak portends instability in the region as other Arab dictators must contend with increasingly hostile populations. Already, the aging president of Yemen has promised electoral reforms to the opposition and will step down later this year. In Bahrain, home to the US's Fifth Fleet and bulwark against Iran, the emir plans to give each family 1,000 dinar (a little over $2,500) ahead of opposition protests next week. Inspired by the successful uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, the Arab world is entering a new period of instability and potential chaos.

The implications for the United States and its allies in the region are critical. Although the US must support freedom and democracy everywhere, this nation must also ensure that the conditions are right for democratic transition. Egypt, now, has only one organized opposition party, the Muslim Brotherhood, which has Islamic roots and is hostile to American and Israeli policy in the Middle East. Inevitably, the party will dominate elections by simply being the most organized party. Wisely, the chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee has warned that the Muslim Brotherhood poses a threat to Egypt's democratic movement. Before Egypt rushes to elections, it must have time to develop an array of parties competing for the people's votes. At this time, they will vote for anyone, regardless of ideology or consequence, as long as it is not Mubarak and his cronies.

Apart from being the day of the Super Bowl, yesterday marked what would have been Ronald Reagan's 100^th birthday. After rising to fame as an actor, Reagan turned his attention to politics, with his career culminating in a two-term presidentship.

Ronald Reagan is consistently touted as one of the great conservative presidents in American history - his devotion to economic growth and his wisdom in foreign policy have engraved his legacy in the hearts of millions of Americans.

Such is his legacy, that even today, some 20 years after he left office, Republicans still invoke his image when discussing the correct direction in which to take this country. And while our veneration of him is often criticized, on his anniversary (albeit belated), we remember him because of the great servant he was to the American people.

Many commentators noted that President Obama's appeals for "investments" in his State of the Union address are really just a veiled effort to increase government spending on projects undertaken without regards to cost-benefit considerations. Anyone who has been following recent events in New Jersey knows that this concern is not merely idle speculation, since this is precisely the pattern of events that has played with regards to the proposed Hudson River train tunnel.

For those who have not been following the story, last fall Governor Chris Christie announced the cancellation of the tunnel, known as "Access to the Region's Core" (ARC), citing cost overruns. The reaction from liberal voices was predictable. On the opinion pages of the New York Times, Professor Paul Krugman denounced the decision as "a perfect symbol of how America has lost its way." Chiming in, Bob Herbert referred to the move as a "policy disaster." Their arguments focused on the alleged economic benefits of the new tunnel, both in the short-term and long-term.

Shortly thereafter, however, an alternative emerged that promised to achieve the same results as the ARC tunnel at a much lower expense. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg revealed plans to extend the city's subway system to Secaucus, which would provide New Jersey Transit passengers with a convenient route into the city. This project would cost $5.3, in contrast to the ARC tunnel, for which estimates ranged as high as $11 million or more.

While this compromise seems like a win-win situation, the federal government was less than pleased. Washington refused to refund the $271 million that New Jersey has already spent on the tunnel (a decision that Christie is seeking to reverse), and has not permitted any of the $3 billion originally allocated for the ARC tunnel to be diverted to the Secaucus subway project.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal's Mary Anastasia O'Grady, Christie noted that cost was only one factor in his decision to cancel the ARC tunnel. The project, he stated, was flawed in design, and was pushed as a result of political calculation rather than actual importance.

The federal government's heavy-handed approach to dealing with the ARC tunnel is similar to its promotion of ill-conceived high-speed rail projects. Like Christie, governors Scott Walker of Wisconsin and John Kasich of Ohio recently decided to reject money that had been earmarked to upgrade rail lines, expressing a preference to put it toward other, worthier transportation needs. Instead, they lost the money altogether, which will now be redistributed to more willing recipients, such as California.

The lesson here is a familiar one, but one that bears repeating; top-down central planning rarely works. It is almost always best to leave decisions to state and local governments, or the private sector, which possess the expertise and responsiveness to carry out projects in an efficient, utility-maximizing fashion. The federal government, by contrast, is prone to waste and mismanagement, as shown by the example of the ARC tunnel. Chris Christie's posture represents a direct challenge to the Obama mantra of investment, and one that enhances his attractiveness as a presidential contender, should he choose to run.