A limited constitutional government calls for a rules-based, freemarket monetary system, not the topsy-turvy fiat dollar that now exists under central banking. This issue of the Cato Journal examines the case for alternatives to central banking and the reforms needed to move toward free-market money.
Americans are finally enjoying an improving economy after years of recession and slow growth. The unemployment rate is dropping, the economy is expanding, and public confidence is rising. Surely our economic crisis is behind us. Or is it? In Going for Broke: Deficits, Debt, and the Entitlement Crisis, Cato scholar Michael D. Tanner examines the growing national debt and its dire implications for our future and explains why a looming financial meltdown may be far worse than anyone expects.
The Cato Institute has released its 2014 Annual Report, which documents a dynamic year of growth and productivity. “Libertarianism is the philosophy of freedom,” Cato’s David Boaz writes in his book, The Libertarian Mind. “It is the indispensable framework for the future.” And as the new report demonstrates, the Cato Institute, thanks largely to the generosity of our Sponsors, is leading the charge to apply this framework across the policy spectrum.
Featuring Kent Masterson Brown, Lead attorney, Hall v. Sebelius; and Michael F. Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies, Cato Institute, and co-author of Healthy Competition: What’s Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.
Supporters claim a new “government option” would compete on a level playing field with private health insurance. But a new lawsuit belies that claim. Since 1993, the Social Security Administration has effectively coerced seniors into enrolling in Medicare by decreeing that those who opt out of Medicare for private insurance must forfeit all Social Security benefits, past and future. Last month, a federal court acknowledged that federal law requires no such thing and that SSA conjured that requirement out of thin air “without public notice and comment.” Kent Masterson Brown and Michael F. Cannon will explain the relevance of Hall v. Sebelius to today’s health reform debate.