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.
Wounds That Will Not Heal: Affirmative Action and Our Continuing Racial Divide
Featuring the author Russell K. Nieli, Senior Preceptor, James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, Princeton University; with comments by Walter Olson, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute; moderated by John Samples,
Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute.
Racial preference policies first came on the national scene in response to black poverty and alienation in America as dramatically revealed in the destructive urban riots of the late 1960s. From the start, however, preference policies were controversial. Many who had opposed segregation and supported color-blind justice felt a sense of betrayal. A majority of Americans continue to oppose affirmative action, often with great intensity. Much of social science research on the topic undermines the central claims of supporters of affirmative action. The mere fact that preference policies have to be referred to through an elaborate system of euphemisms and code words—affirmative action, “diversity,” “goals and timetables,” “race sensitive admissions”—tells us something, Russell Nieli argues, about their widespread unpopularity, their tendency to reinforce negative stereotypes about their intended beneficiaries, and their incompatibility with core principles of American justice. Nieli concludes with an impassioned plea to refocus our public attention on the “truly disadvantaged” African American population in our nation’s urban centers. Please join us for a provocative look at racial preferences.