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.
Ten Commandments Ruling Underscores That Progressives Need School Choice
English Summary
The article argues that school choice is an essential policy for progressives as well as conservatives, particularly following a court ruling allowing religious displays in public classrooms. It highlights a Fifth Circuit decision overturning an injunction against a Louisiana law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted, illustrating the ongoing legal shift toward allowing more religion in schools. The author concludes that since public schools cannot satisfy all diverse beliefs, educational funding should follow the student to ensure all families can access education aligned with their values.
中文摘要
本文主張教育選擇權對於進步派與保守派而言皆為不可或缺的政策，特別是在法院裁定允許公立教室進行宗教展示之後。文中強調了第五巡迴上訴法院撤銷路易斯安那州法律禁制令的判決（該法律要求張貼「十誡」），說明法律趨勢正轉向允許宗教更多地進入校園。作者總結指出，由於公立學校無法滿足所有多元信仰，教育經費應採行「經費隨學生走」的原則，以確保所有家庭都能獲得符合其價值觀的教育。
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 Compounding this is administrative complexity and outdated verification systems, which facilitate improper payments and rule manipulation across programs like Medicaid and SNAP.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.