Unconventional monetary policy—characterized by “zero interest rate policy” (ZIRP) and “quantitative easing” (QE), along with macro-prudential regulation—has increased the power of central banks in the United States, Japan, and Europe. In the new issue of Cato Journal, contributors revisit the thinking behind unconventional monetary policy and the “new monetary framework,” make the case for transparent monetary rules versus foggy discretion, and point to the distortions generated by ultra-low interest rates and preferential credit allocation.
When the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in 2005, Denmark found itself at the center of a global battle about the freedom of speech. The paper’s culture editor, Flemming Rose, defended the decision to print the 12 drawings, and he quickly came to play a central part in the debate about the limitations to freedom of speech in the 21st century. In The Tyranny of Silence, Flemming Rose provides a personal account of an event that has shaped the debate about what it means to be a citizen in a democracy and how to coexist in a world that is increasingly multicultural, multireligious, and multiethnic.
The Cato Institute has released its 2015 Annual Report, which documents a dynamic year of growth and productivity. The thousands of individuals who contribute to Cato are passionate about freedom and committed to ensuring that future generations enjoy the blessings of liberty, unencumbered by an overreaching state that seeks to control their lives. This is Cato’s optimistic vision for the future, and it would be unimaginable without the Institute’s longstanding partnership with its Sponsors. We will continue our diligence and dedication to seeing this vision realized.
Beyond the Individual Mandate: The Obamacare “Tax” Is Still Unconstitutional
Featuring Timothy Sandefur, Principal Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation; Ilya Somin,
Professor of Law, George Mason University; and Simon Lazarus, Senior Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center; moderated by Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.
President Obama recently declared that “the debate” over the Affordable Care Act “is over.” That may be wishful thinking given that the law continues to be unpopular and its implementation keeps hitting snags. Moreover, lawsuits challenging Obamacare are once again reaching the nation’s highest courts. On May 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear arguments in Sissel v. Department of Health & Human Services, which involves the claim that the ACA’s “tax” on people without health insurance—as the Supreme Court deemed it two years ago—still violates the Constitution. The Constitution’s Origination Clause requires all tax bills to “originate” in the House of Representatives, while Obamacare came from the Senate (recall how the House voted on the Senate bill after Scott Brown won a special Senate election in Massachusetts and deprived the Democrats of their filibuster-proof majority). Please join us to hear about Sissel and its implications for limited government from the attorney who will have just argued the case, Cato adjunct scholar Timothy Sandefur.