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.
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 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 Compounding this is administrative complexity and outdated verification systems, which facilitate improper payments and rule manipulation across programs like Medicaid and SNAP.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.