Featuring Alex Kozinski, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; moderated by Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute.
Ending the already vague pledge to come to Taiwan’s defense while continuing arms sales is a low-cost policy that reduces the probability of a U.S.-China war over Taiwan while preserving Taiwan’s ability to defend itself.
American leaders have cooperated with regimes around the world that are, to varying degrees, repressive or corrupt. Such cooperation is said to serve the national interest. But these partnerships also contravene the nation’s commitments to democratic governance, civil liberties, and free markets. In Perilous Partners, authors Ted Galen Carpenter and Malou Innocent provide a strategy for resolving the ethical dilemmas between interests and values faced by Washington.
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.