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.
So many Americans are concerned with how “Washington isn’t listening to them,” and candidates like Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Ben Carson are stoking that outrage. But maybe Washington isn’t listening because it is so big that only mobilized special interests have the resources and incentives to pay attention. Maybe big government will never really pay attention to the people. If this is so, then maybe people should stop trying to control each other so much.
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.
Tricked on Our Treats: Time to Rethink the U.S. Sugar Program
Featuring Daniel Griswold, Director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute; author, Mad About Trade; and William A. Reinsch, President, National Foreign Trade Council.
For decades, the U.S. government has restricted sugar imports through a system of quotas designed to keep domestic prices artificially high, even though foreign producers can grow and sell sugar at much lower prices. Domestic growers maintain that they need the quotas to protect them from “dumped” imports. Critics argue that the program increases costs for U.S. consumers and hurts domestic confectioners and other sugar-using industries. It also inhibits development abroad by walling off the U.S. market from farmers in Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa. In a recent letter, the National Foreign Trade Council and other trade organizations urged the Obama administration to consider relaxing the quotas in the face of high global prices and the threat of domestic shortages. Isn’t it time to rethink the U.S. sugar program?