The Cato Institute warns that the USPS's current handling of mail balloting poses a significant risk of systemic failure ahead of major elections. Key concerns include whistleblower allegations regarding 'batch rejection protocols,' which could invalidate thousands of legitimate ballots, coupled with documented slowdowns in delivery speed and increased rejections for lateness. This instability suggests potential operational or political interference aimed at undermining mail voting integrity. Consequently, the article advises that voters and state election officials must plan to bypass the USPS system by utilizing alternative secure methods, such as drop boxes or early in-person voting, to ensure timely ballot submission.
New NAEP Results: More Evidence That the Status Quo Isn’t Working
English Summary
The latest NAEP results show that while 9-year-olds made modest gains, older students remain significantly below historical performance levels, with reading unchanged since 1971 and math only slightly improved since 1973. Despite tripling per-student spending since 1970 (now exceeding $20,000 annually), decades of centralized reforms have failed to produce improvements, indicating a fundamental accountability problem in the government monopoly system. The article argues that parental choice would create stronger incentives for school improvement than bureaucratic oversight, as families could leave underperforming schools with their funding. These persistent failures suggest that educational freedom and expanded school choice are necessary complements to address systemic underperformance.
中文摘要
最新的全國教育進度評估(NAEP)結果表明，雖然9歲兒童取得適度進展，但年長的學生仍遠低於歷史表現水平，閱讀能力自1971年以來保持停滯，數學自1973年以來僅略有改善。儘管自1970年以來人均教育支出增加了三倍（目前超過每年20,000美元），但數十年的集中式改革未能產生實質改善，反映出政府教育壟斷體制中存在根本的問責缺陷。該文章主張家長選擇權將比官僚監督為學校改善創造更強的激勵機制，因為家庭可以根據教育經費流向而離開表現不佳的學校。這些長期的失敗表明，教育自由和擴大學校選擇權是必要的補充措施，以解決系統性表現不足的問題。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The article argues that the United States' aggressive use of tariffs and economic coercion is counterproductive, inspiring international partners to actively circumvent US markets. Instead of increasing dependency on American trade, major global players are deepening cooperation by establishing new free trade agreements (e.g., EU-India, ACFTA, CPTPP) that explicitly exclude the U.S. This trend signals a significant shift toward increased global economic integration outside of US influence. Policymakers should recognize this accelerating decoupling, as it suggests that the traditional American model of trade leverage is rapidly diminishing unless the U.S. commits to upholding multilateral rules and reducing protectionism.
-
3.
The article argues that passing a Continuing Resolution (CR), while preventing an immediate government shutdown, merely preserves an unsustainable fiscal status quo rather than addressing underlying budgetary crises. Congress is criticized for using the CR as an escape route from difficult choices—such as cutting programs or tackling massive deficits—while simultaneously planning to increase debt through reconciliation packages for defense and agriculture. The core problem remains mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare) driving debt unsustainably. For genuine fiscal stability, the author advises that Congress must move beyond short-term funding measures, prioritize essential functions, and establish a dedicated process to impose discipline on mandatory programs.
-
4.
The article argues that inheritance and estate taxes are detrimental to economic growth, investment, and productivity. Citing Sweden's experience after abolishing the gift and inheritance tax in 2005, the author notes subsequent increases in firm profitability, net sales, and asset values. The core reasoning suggests that removing these taxes allows owner-managers to reinvest capital directly into their companies rather than withdrawing funds for anticipated future tax liabilities. This increased internal investment has been shown to boost corporate financial health and higher corporate income tax payments.
-
5.
The CATO article argues that the US-Venezuela oil deal is deeply problematic due to significant governance and ethical concerns. Key criticisms include a lack of transparency in negotiations, the expansion of state corporatism through government involvement in resource extraction, and questionable legality since it bypasses Venezuelan constitutional requirements. Furthermore, the agreement utilizes a notoriously corrupt private partner and sidelines the democratic opposition, severely undermining US credibility and future diplomatic efforts. Strategically, the deal is viewed as an ill-advised 'imperial resource grab' that risks damaging long-term American influence in Latin America.