CATO argues that the proposed defense supplemental budget represents wasteful and unnecessary spending, largely driven by reactive measures related to the war in Iran. The article highlights that significant portions of this funding are dedicated to operational expenses and resupplying depleted munitions inventories. Furthermore, it notes that actual military outlays are consistently underreported because multiple agencies contribute funds outside the Department of Defense. Consequently, the continuous expansion of defense spending is deemed fiscally irresponsible, adding billions to an already excessive budget without providing clear benefits to American taxpayers.
Study: More Parole Doesn't Mean More Safety — It May Mean More Prison
English Summary
A study of Illinois parole reform finds that reducing parole supervision for exiting prisoners lowered one-year reincarceration rates by 9–10 percentage points, driven almost entirely by fewer technical revocations rather than any change in criminal behavior. The research shows no evidence that reduced supervision increased crime; in fact, the absence of parole's ongoing threat of technical revocation appeared to offset any potential uptick. Policy simulations suggest that halving parole terms for low-to-medium-risk offenders could shrink average prison populations by roughly 3 percent with no harm to public safety, reinforcing the argument that existing parole systems inflate incarceration through procedural violations without meaningful safety benefits.
中文摘要
一項針對伊利諾州假釋改革的研究發現，減少對出獄囚犯的假釋監管使一年內再入獄率降低了9至10個百分點，此降幅幾乎完全源於技術性撤銷假釋案件的減少，而非犯罪行為的任何變化。研究顯示，並無證據表明減少監管會導致犯罪增加；事實上，取消假釋中持續存在的技術性撤銷威脅，似乎抵消了任何潛在的犯罪上升。政策模擬顯示，將中低風險犯罪者的假釋期限縮短一半，可在不損害公共安全的前提下，將平均監獄人口減少約百分之三，進一步印證了現行假釋制度透過程序性違規擴大監禁規模、卻未帶來實質安全效益的論點。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The Cato Institute argues that federal welfare programs are plagued by systemic design flaws leading to massive waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer funds. These losses stem primarily from a 'financing mismatch,' where states administer benefits but the federal government bears most of the cost, weakening local incentives for proper enforcement. Compounding this is administrative complexity and outdated verification systems, which facilitate improper payments and rule manipulation across programs like Medicaid and SNAP. To curb these multi-trillion dollar losses, the authors recommend structural reforms—such as converting programs into zero-growth block grants or strengthening eligibility rules—to align state financial incentives with federal accountability.
-
3.
Recent court rulings demonstrate significant judicial resistance to federal efforts attempting to intervene in state-level election administration. Judges have blocked presidential attempts to mandate changes to mail-in balloting, prevented the creation of large voter databases using inaccurate data, and generally dismissed suits demanding state voter files. These findings indicate that core electoral processes remain largely protected by state autonomy against broad federal mandates. Consequently, policy strategists should anticipate continued legal challenges limiting the scope of executive power in election mechanics, reinforcing decentralized control over voting procedures.
-
4."Overwhelmingly a Positive Development": FDA Finally Stops Blocking Safe, Effective Bemotrizinol Sunscreens (CATO)
The publication argues that the FDA's regulatory process is overly restrictive and detrimental to public health, using sunscreen ingredients like bemotrizinol as a primary example of unnecessary overregulation. The core finding is that the agency frequently commits 'Type II errors'—blocking beneficial products—which harms consumers more than it helps, due to political incentives focused only on avoiding Type I errors (blocking harmful substances). For policy reform, the author recommends Congress eliminate or drastically curtail FDA power and immediately remove barriers allowing US consumers access to health products already approved in other developed nations. This shift is presented as essential for promoting individual liberty and consumer choice over government control.
-
5.
CATO argues that current judicial interpretations of FOIA's Exemption 7 are flawed because some circuits apply a "per se" rule, automatically exempting any document compiled by law enforcement agencies regardless of its actual purpose. This interpretation contradicts the plain text of FOIA, which requires proof that records were compiled for legitimate law enforcement objectives. The pending Supreme Court case underscores this conflict, as broad exemptions allow the government to shield potential abuses and surveillance overreach from public scrutiny. Policy-wise, overturning the "per se" rule is critical to restoring transparency in federal governance and ensuring that public access remains an effective tool against governmental misconduct.