Californians will vote on a 5 percent tax on billionaire wealth this November. In Congress, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D‑MA) and Bernie Sanders (I‑VT) are pushing plans for an annual wealth tax. And abroad, Norway and Spain have expanded their wealth taxes, and some countries want to impose a global wealth tax.

Our new Cato study, “Failures of Wealth Taxation,” discusses why these efforts are misguided. The study describes how a dozen European countries have tried wealth taxes but then repealed them in failure. Wealth taxes raise little revenue, drive out investment and entrepreneurs, and become riddled with loopholes.

The Constitution’s treaty ratification process, which requires the consent of two-thirds of the Senate, covers a shrinking share of the promises the United States makes to other countries. The rest are concluded as executive agreements under varying degrees of congressional authorization. For decades, the Case–Zablocki Act’s (Case Act) reporting requirements have been Congress’ main window into the executive branch’s growing practice of striking international deals outside the treaty process. But it’s a poor substitute for affirmative consent, and as a recent US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report makes clear, administrations routinely flout even those modest obligations, resulting in Congress learning about US commitments sometimes months after they’ve been finalized.

President Trump’s pet legislation—the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE America Act—would require Americans to provide documented proof of citizenship upon registering to vote, usually a passport or birth certificate. This, the act’s proponents argue, would prevent noncitizen actors from illegally registering and participating in American elections. The recently revealed registration mishap in New Jersey has led to renewed advocacy for the act. Vice President JD Vance weighed in; so, too, did Sen. Dave McCormick (R‑PA) and Trump’s “Rapid Response” social media account. (“Yet another reason to PASS THE SAVE AMERICA ACT!”)

But it’s unclear if the SAVE America Act would have prevented what happened in New Jersey.

Recently, the House of Representatives passed the KIDS Act, an omnibus package of bills that could fundamentally change how all users experience the internet. This approach puts policymakers, not parents, in control of what their children see online. And it threatens speech and privacy rights for adult users, too.

Perhaps most importantly, it has been tried elsewhere. And in those places, it has failed. The result is always the same: the internet becomes much less interesting—and much less useful.

Read the rest of this post →

On Wednesday, July 22, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on multiple consumer protection bills, including the App Store Freedom Act (ASFA). Supporters of ASFA claim that this bill will promote competition in the app store market by forcing developers of an electronic device’s operating system to allow the installation of third-party app stores, to allow the use of third-party payment processors, and a myriad of other restrictions. Ironically, the bill’s provisions would make the app store market less competitive by reducing covered companies’ ability to engage in competitive practices that make their products more appealing to potential customers. It would also have negative spillover effects in the hardware market by restricting hardware developers from offering closed-system products to customers and prescribing a business model as a whole.

Read the rest of this post →

Yesterday’s report by the Treasury Department shows that better pre-payment screening through the Do Not Pay (DNP) system can save taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

DNP is a data-sharing tool agencies use to cross-check applications against federal databases and flag improper payments before the money goes out the door. This saves taxpayers from footing the bill for agencies’ defaulting to the expensive and inefficient “pay and chase” approach of issuing erroneous payments and trying to recover them after the fact.

Read the rest of this post →

A new study argues that recent drug decriminalizations in Oregon and Washington caused substantial increases in drug overdoses.

Is this plausible? And does it imply that prohibition is better than legalization?

Yes, and no.

Decriminalization means the elimination of criminal penalties for drug possession. Legalization means the elimination of criminal penalties for production and sale.

Read the rest of this post →