The article argues that the Federal Reserve's recent rate hike decision, while justifiable on inflation grounds, highlights a critical lack of an underlying, transparent policy framework. The core problem is that the Fed's decisions appear discretionary, leading to market uncertainty because the committee's judgment, rather than clear data, dictates policy shifts. The author proposes that the Fed adopt a formal monetary policy rule—an algebraic formula linking the target rate to indicators like inflation and unemployment—to replace subjective guidance. Implementing such a rule would provide market predictability, enhance transparency, and shield the Fed from political attacks by making deviations from the standard easily quantifiable.
New Cato Study Debunks Decades of Conventional Wisdom on State Funding and Rising Tuition
English Summary
The Cato Institute study refutes the long-held assumption that rising college tuition is a necessary response to state disinvestment in higher education. Analysis of 1980–2025 data shows that, contrary to belief, states have actually increased funding per student over the past decades. Crucially, the report finds a very weak correlation between changes in state funding and subsequent increases in tuition revenue, debunking the notion that tuition rises to offset perceived cuts. Policymakers should note that attempts by states to significantly boost funding merely to lower tuition are economically inefficient, as the return on investment is negligible.
中文摘要
凱托學會（Cato Institute）的研究反駁了長期以來普遍的假設，即大學學費的上升是州政府削減高等教育投資所必須採取的應對措施。根據 1980 年至 2025 年的數據分析顯示，與普遍認知相反，各州在過去幾十年中每位學生獲得的資金實際上有所增加。更重要的是，該報告發現州政府資金變動與學費收入增長之間存在極為微弱的相關性，駁斥了「學費上漲以彌補感知到的削減」這一觀念。政策制定者應注意，如果各州試圖大幅增加資金投入僅為降低學費，從經濟角度來看是低效的，因為其投資回報率可忽略不計。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The brief challenges current border policies that allow agents to search travelers' digital devices without a warrant, arguing this violates the Fourth Amendment. Cato contends that the existing 'border-search exception' is being misused to grant the government an overly broad, warrantless window into private digital lives. The core argument is that personal possession of data should not be treated as a vulnerability, while third-party cloud storage should not be treated as a refuge. If upheld, these policies transform routine border crossings into invasive investigative checkpoints, significantly eroding constitutional privacy rights.
-
3.
Congress has significantly expanded presidential tariff authority by passing the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, allowing the executive to impose up to 100% tariffs on key buyers of Russian energy and sanctions enablers. The article argues that this legislation represents a dangerous abdication of Congress's Article I authority, as it grants the executive vast, discretionary power without specifying criteria for enforcement. Historically, the executive could claim tariffs were its own doing; however, by writing and passing this new authority, Congress now owns the resulting trade policy and its economic consequences. This shift implies that future tariffs will be viewed by the public as a direct legislative action, potentially undermining the administration's credibility and creating political vulnerability.
-
4.
The article argues that conventional K-12 public education is often overly bureaucratic and fails to accommodate individual student needs, stifling creativity and agency. Forest City Academy (FCA) demonstrates an alternative model utilizing state vouchers and a mastery-based curriculum that emphasizes experiential learning, small group instruction, and student choice. This approach, which integrates outdoor play and practical skills alongside limited technology, suggests that policy should expand educational freedom and market-based choice to better align learning environments with holistic child development. Such reforms challenge the status quo by promoting parental agency and decentralized educational decision-making.
-
5.Benoir v. Town of Parksley Brief: Governments Cannot Use Pretextual Reasons to Silence Critics (CATO)
This brief argues that local governments cannot use technical zoning ordinances or procedural loopholes as a pretext to suppress protected speech. The case involves a town attempting to shut down a food truck owner after the owner complained about an initial ban, using a general ordinance despite having made prior commitments. CATO contends that the district court fundamentally misunderstood First Amendment law by allowing the government to evade scrutiny based on technical legality rather than the true motive for the adverse action. If this ruling stands, it significantly weakens free speech protections, enabling local authorities to undermine civil liberties by hiding behind administrative technicalities.