Featuring Cato Institute Interns; and Heritage Foundation Interns; with an introduction by Mark Houser, Student Programs Coordinator, Cato Institute; moderated by Christopher Bedford, Senior Editor, Daily Caller.
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 not just a framework for utopia,” 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.
Iran’s Nuclear Program: Isolation, Engagement, or Acceptance?
Featuring Peter Brookes, Heritage Foundation; Joseph Cirincione,
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; and Ted Galen Carpenter,
Cato Institute. Moderated by Charles V. Peña, Cato Institute.
Iran appears to be playing a cat-and-mouse game with the International Atomic Energy Agency, claiming that its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian purposes. Yet the Iranians are proceeding to enrich uranium that could then be used to build nuclear weapons. Undersecretary of State John Bolton advocates isolating Tehran and has stated that the United States will not “allow America’s national security to be dependent on the good faith of a group of fanatic mullahs seeking nuclear weapons.” Some presidential rhetoric is eerily similar to language used very early in the run-up to the Iraq war. The Israelis have made it clear that they will never permit Iran to become a nuclear power and are reported to be buying 500 bunker-buster bombs from the United States. Is preemptive military action against Iran inevitable? What are the consequences of such action? Is engagement with Iran to create a nonproliferation regime a viable option? Are isolation and engagement the only policy choices? Is it possible for the United States to come to terms with a nuclear-armed Iran?