We read news stories almost every day that simply assume that government spending is good for the economy. Any defense or nondefense spending restraint will hurt economic growth, it is supposed.  But is this really the case?  Cato scholar Chris Edwards argues that, while government spending certainly helps the government-dependent parts of the U.S. economy, its impact on the private economy is clearly negative.

• “Government Spending Up, Private GDP Down,” by Chris Edwards
• “Why in the World Are We All Keynesians Again? The Flimsy Case for Stimulus Spending,” by Andrew T. Young
• “Should U.S. Fiscal Policy Address Slow Growth or the Debt? A Nondilemma,” by Jeffrey A. Miron

The Senate recently blocked a compromise measure that would have compelled unlicensed sellers at gun shows and online gun sellers to conduct background checks. Senator Joe Manchin has indicated that he plans on reintroducing the legislation. While Cato scholars have generally questioned the usefulness of background checks, in the New York Times, Cato chairman Robert A. Levy makes the case that the background checks are a “reasonable” price to pay for the elements of the legislation more favorable to gun rights proponents.

• “Further Thoughts on Sensible Gun Legislation,” by Robert A. Levy
• “Gun Debate Won’t End until There Is Respect on Both Sides ,” by Trevor Burrus
• “Schumer-Toomey Gun Bill Deserves a Committee Hearing,” by David B. Kopel

How much does the United States spend on the military relative to our allies? A lot. A new information-packed short Cato video puts this comparison in perspective. The data, pulled from the Cato infographic from last week, shows how we are subsidizing the security of wealthy allies who can and should defend themselves to a far greater extent than they do. Instead, we provide for their security while they spend their money on just about everything else (especially their bloated welfare states).  This is no way for your tax dollars to work.

Concerns about the putative political and electoral consequences of the Citizens United decision have fostered several proposals to amend the Constitution. Most simply propose giving Congress unchecked new power over spending on political speech, power that will be certainly abused. In a new paper, Cato scholar John Samples argues that the public purposes cited for restricting political spending and speech are not persuasive and do not justify the breadth of power granted under these amendments. “Americans should defend—not amend away—the freedom of speech recognized by the First Amendment,” says Samples.

• “Move to Defend: The Case against the Constitutional Amendments Seeking to Overturn Citizens United,” by John Samples