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.
Government Is a Leaky Bucket
English Summary
The article argues that federal government spending is fundamentally inefficient, likening the process to a "leaky bucket." The core finding is that every stage of raising and deploying funds—from taxes to program delivery—is undermined by bureaucratic inefficiencies, design errors, and behavioral responses. Consequently, the study asserts that most federal programs generate costs far exceeding their benefits across sectors like defense, welfare, and health care. Policymakers should therefore drastically reduce federal involvement, allowing resources and problem-solving activities to be handled primarily by state governments and the private sector.
中文摘要
本文論述聯邦政府支出本質上存在效率不足的問題，並將此過程比喻為「漏水的桶」。核心發現指出，從稅收徵集到計畫執行（program delivery）的各個階段，都受到官僚體制低效、設計缺陷和行為反應等因素的拖累。因此，研究主張，在國防、福利和醫療保健等領域，大多數聯邦計畫產生的成本遠超過其帶來的效益。本文建議政策制定者應大幅縮減中央政府的介入程度，讓資源分配與問題解決活動主要由州政府和私營部門來負責。
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 Compounding this is administrative complexity and outdated verification systems, which facilitate improper payments and rule manipulation across programs like Medicaid and SNAP.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.