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.
Featuring Daniel Griswold, Cato Institute; William R. Hawkins, U.S. Business and Industry Council; Loren Thompson, Lexington Institute; Malcolm Wallop, Former U.S. Senator; moderated by Charles V. Peña, Cato Institute.
The Marine One helicopter might be the most recognizable symbol of the president of the United States. After 30 years of service, the current fleet of helicopters is due to be replaced. The contract is worth $1.6 billion and could mean an additional $8 billion in helicopters for the Air Force, Coast Guard, and Department of Homeland Security for the winner. By law, at least 50 percent of a U.S. weapon system must be made in America. Both Sikorsky’s All American Team and Lockheed Martin’s US101 team are engaged in a fierce competition to portray themselves as being more American than the other. How much should “buy American” be a factor in this or any other defense procurement? Is such an approach a sound economic and trade policy in a globalized economy? What are the other factors that should determine which design is better? What are the consequences if the best design has foreign involvement?