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.
The No-Tax-Hike Pledge: Does It Help or Hurt the Fight for Smaller Government?
Featuring Dan Mitchell; Senior Fellow, Cato Institute; and Kevin Williamson, Deputy Managing Editor, National Review; moderated by Brandon Arnold, Director of Government Affairs, Cato Institute.
With record levels of government spending and rising amounts of red ink, there is considerable debate about whether a “grand compromise” budget deal is needed to restore fiscal sanity in Washington. Proponents of this approach specifically say that the no-tax-hike pledge is hindering a budget agreement and thus ruining an opportunity to reduce the burden of government spending. Opponents counter by pointing out that the problem is the result of too much spending and that spending restraint is the obvious solution. Moreover, past experience demonstrates that promised spending cuts in budget summit agreements quickly evaporate, but the tax increases are permanent. Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute and Kevin Williamson of National Review will debate whether the no-tax-hike pledge helps or hinders the fight for fiscal responsibility.